My fellow Americans, legal immigrants, and undocumented workers! This year presidential elections will present a watershed in the history of our country as well as in the history of the world. This November the people of United States of America will decide what kind of the country they want to live in. The country, in which they take personal moral responsibility for their own lives, lives of their children and their parents, or the country, in which they delegate this responsibility to governmental bureaucrats. The country of the later kind has been in the making for most of the last 100 years, with several interruptions, so all the structures are in place to complete its construction. President Obama and his supporters will achieve this goal and irreversibly change the very nature of American society shall he be re-elected in November. To fundamentally change America was what he set out to do four years ago, this is what he publicly promised to the forces who brought him to power. The vision offered by the president might appear attractive to many people. After all, who does not want to live in society, in which all the hungry are fed, all the sick are being cared for, all children are given excellent free education, everyone has all they need, the air is free from pollution, the climate does not change, and humans live in peace and harmony with all other living species on the Earth. But what is the price that we are willing to pay to achieve this Utopia?
The common wisdom of pundits and political class is that these elections are about economy and jobs. It is true that our economy struggles and our people suffer from lack of jobs. But I think that our society suffers from a more serious problem and that our economic stagnation is just one of its many consequences. What ills us the most is that the moral fabric of our society is strained to its limit and started showing gaps and holes. Just look around and you see moral degradation everywhere. It can be seen in small actions of individuals and extremely consequential steps of large businesses. Our students do not feel ashamed anymore to cheat on tests, but what is even worse is that some of our teachers find it morally permissible to cheat for their students. And even worse than that, we are not treating this occurence as shameful moral failure of teaching profession, but trying instead to find excuses for them and shift the blame to somebody else. Our bankers do not feel any moral restraints in squandering money of their clients while pretending to "serve" them. And what do we do? We bail them out. Our journalists find it acceptable to fabricate stories to advance their own carriers, and are ready to bend their principles to promote political agendas they are subscribed to. Corruption among our political class reached gigantic proportions. Our young women use their children as a tool to finance their leisure life style with handouts from the government, and instead of admonishing them, we find all kind of reasons why it is somebody else's fault. Our businessmen prefer to use their connections in the government to develop their businesses instead of relying on their brains and knowledge and hard work to offer better products to their customers. Moral erosion, unfortunately, reached all levels of our society, and those who benefit from it will fight till bitter end to keep their privileges.
It did not happen overnight. The forces tearing apart our society have been at work for a rather long time. This moral degradation is one of the unintended consequences of social policies imposed on us by multiple administrations over last century. Over this time period at least a part of our society got accustomed to the paternalistic view of the role of government. We statrted more and more to rely on government for rearing and educating our children, for providing medical services for us, for our retirement planning, for funding our businesses, for assistance in unfavorable business environment. We relinquished our moral responsibilities when we delegated to government to do what used to be our own duty. We stopped taking care of our elders because we entrusted government to do it for us. Equally, we became much less involved in lives of our children because government convinced us that we should trust our children to it. We even stopped taking care of ourselves because we became convinced that it is government's responsibility as well. We stopped looking for better ways to serve our clients and innovate in our businesses because we find it easier to bribe a politician and have him squash our competition for us, or give us a favorable loan, or bail us out, when we make stupid risky decisions. We do not worry about consequences of our decisions anymore because no matter what, the government will come and rescue us. All this is, first of all, the moral failures of us as people, which resulted from our willingness to neglect our own moral responsibilities.
Do you think that these words are too harsh for someone who hopes to get your votes in November. May be. But in these desperate times those who want to lead must have courage to tell people the truth as they see it. False praises to the greatness of our country and our people will only result in further irreparable decay and destruction. O, yes, our country used to be great, and it still can return to its glory, but we must wake up from the lethargy and see what is becoming of us. I believe that there are still enough people in this country who are seeing the truth, and that there are many others whose minds are open and flexible enough to recognize that the gods they were taught to worship are false gods. I believe that if all good and honest people, even those who might have been misled by decades of brainwashing and propaganda, come together, we shall be able to overcome those who are bent on destruction of this country in order to fulfill their utopian dreams and the thirst for power. I am ready to be the leader of this movement, and this is why I am running for the President. I am positive that there are still many honest, hard working people in this country, who take pride in their own achievements, who find it immoral to get ahead in life by cheating or by taking stuff from others using the power of government, those who do build their businesses, spend sleepless nights studying, inventing, serving in the military, teaching in schools and universities, planting crops, making discoveries, sending shuttles in space, exploring. These people, no matter what the color of their skin is or what their religious believes are, or if they are legally or illegally in this country, these people are mine constituents, and it is for their sake I am running for the President.
President Obama will tell you that I promote individualism and that this is not an American way. He will tell you that we, Americans, always take care of each other. Well, I am an individualist, in the sense that I believe in the power of an individual to make decisions about his or her life without government intervention. I believe that we, as individuals, are capable in most cases come to agreement with each other without "help" from government and freely trade our skills and fruits of our labor. I agree with the president that it is an American tradition to take care of your neighbor, but I disagree with his implicit suggestion that taking care of one's neighbor must involve government bueracracy. Obama and his supporters believe that our communities are not capable of helping those of us who are in need without government involvement. By doing so they are diminishing hundreds of years of charitable work done by many Americans. By giving our communities false hopes that government can help them, they are destroying charitable initiative of our citizens. For some reasons they believe that it is more moral to depend on government for help when you are in need than to accept help from your neighbors. Nothing can be more perverted than this. Government can help only by taking money from other people by force, and how can it be moral to accept funds attained through coercion? Neighbors, on the other hand, help because they feel moral obligation to do so voluntarily. There is no shame in accepting help given with open heart and willingly. Americans are generous people, and they are ready to help those who need help, and they will be happy to do it as soon as government gets out of the way. By restoring morality of our society we will be able to move forward as free succesfull people while providing social safety net to week and ill. To achieve this will be the main objective of my presidency.
Very eloquent! Maybe there's a future for you as a speechwriter after all. Only I'm not sure Mitt Romney is the best person to give this speech. He seems a little too slick, to much of an inside player. I picture this more like something out of a Frank Capra film--the earnest, good-hearted honest and sincere citizen gets up and gives the speech that floors everyone and changes the world. I hear strains of John Galt as well--maybe not surprising since I'm sure Ayn Rand watched her fair share of Frank Capra movies. At any rate no matter who gives the speech it can't be much worse than what Romney's been saying lately.
ReplyDeleteTurning to the substance of the speech, though, I see a number of problems. What jumps out at me first is a lack of correspondence between symptoms and underlying causes. Our heroic orator pinpoints the key problem as a deterioration of morality and gives a number of examples--students cheating on exams, bankers bilking clients, welfare fraud, bribery and abuse of the elderly. Obviously these are serious problems involving a number of factors and motivations. But yet, our hero would have us believe that one and only one thing is responsible--big government. But seriously, Lev, do you actually believe that? How many times have the students you catch cheating come into your office and said "Sorry Professor Deych, I didn't mean any harm, but those government bureaucrats wouldn't leave me along--I had to cheat." Or perhaps there's been a case when an investment banker accused of stealing client's money has come before the SEC and said--it's all your fault, you told me I couldn't steal and so I had to do it anyway!
In fact all of these cases you describe are better seen as instances of hyper-individualism run amok. These are cases in which people willfully ignore their broader obligations to society at large and to their immediate communities and do whatever it takes to get ahead. Weakening the power of government to regulate and institute the rule of law will only make these behaviors worse. It would be like a basketball game in which the response to one team's excessive fouls is to get rid of the referee. It just doesn't make sense.
Above and beyond this disconnect between the problem and the solution, there are two rhetorical strategies in the speech that I find somewhat disturbing. First is the divisive tone--the tendency to frame the issue in terms of a dichotomy between the valiant, honest, hard working, morally upstanding producers and the lazy, cheating, cowardly, immortal parasites, who, we all know, are the way they are because of big government. This all sounds very convincing, until you take a closer look at these allegedly defective humans. Suddenly these stark line in black and white dissolve into endless shades of grey. Yes, of course, there are people who are truly bad--hardened criminals, psychopaths, megalomaniacs and the like. But most people are just struggling to get by. They encounter temptation and occasionally they succumb. When they do, there's usually a process of rationalization involved--they still think of themselves as good people but in this particular case it was OK because of ...xyz... the possibilities for rationalization are endless. I'm not saying this to justify immorality, but who hasn't been tempted at one point or another. As the bible says--let he who is without sin throw the first stone. At any rate these are individual decisions, and I really don't see how the government enters the picture.
ReplyDeleteThe other rhetorical strategy that I find questionable is this idea of harkening back to a golden age--"yes, there was a time when America was great, when people were honest, when dogs were obedient, when the rain only fell when it was needed, etc. etc. Now, of course, everyone has gone to hell and it's going to get worse." This is a very common way of thinking. Only one problem--it's just not true! If anything corruption, dishonesty, immorality, etc were much worse in bygone days. If you have any doubts you might read up on Frank Hague, the notorious mayor of Jersey City in the early 20th century. But perhaps the golden age was earlier. I understand that libertarian/tea party types tend to see the progressive era in general and the introduction of the graduated income tax in 1913 in particular as the beginning of the end for America. But ask any historian, and you'll hear that the period between the Civil War and 1900 was the most corrupt period in American politics bar none. I could cite numerous examples, but it would become tiresome very quickly. In short, there was no golden age. People these days are no more and no less dishonest and immoral than they were in the past, although the character of immorality may have changed. Any whatever the motives for bad behavior, it is way too simplistic (not to mention downright wrong) to pin it all on the role of government.
One last quibble. You need to read up on Watergate. Nixon's crime had nothing to do with eavesdropping. It was, in fact, an actual burglary by a group run out of the White House that started the whole thing. What got Nixon impeached, though, was not the original crime itself but the cover-up--his repeated lies to Congress and the courts and his determination to obstruct the investigation whatever the cost. I think you'll agree that these are crimes of a slightly more serious nature than recording a speech at a private function.
ReplyDeleteNathan, but your examples pointing out that government has always been corrupt misses the point. I was never talking about honest government officials, it is in their nature to be corrupt. I had in mind regular folk trying to get by, but in doing so confirming to a number of quite simple moral principles, like it was considered indecent to demand publicly benefits from the government or to cheat in school. One can of course, find multiple examples of bad behavior happening at all times, but the general mood of society was to condemn such instances in very certain terms. In the case of school cheating, there are actually hard data supporting the claim that the amount of cheating has increased dramatically over last 20 years, and most importantly, the attitude toward it changed. If in the past students were ashamed to admit cheating, now they do not see anything wrong with it. They are just getting by, you know. This attitude to excuse people who are just getting by when they do something which would be unthinkable just 50 years ago, is exactly what I am taking about. Thus, I think that your response does provide additional proof of my general point of general moral decline, which is manifested, first of all, in readiness of us, the intellectuals, to excuse it as just "people getting by". As far as for divisiveness of my rhetoric, I am standing fully behind it. Yes, there are people honestly doing their work, and there are opportunists ready to cut corners when no one is looking, and the number of the latter is growing. Is it government's fault? I believe it is, but not in a such a direct way, of course as you assume.
ReplyDeleteAlso, may be Nixon was impeached for lying not for actual breaking and entering. But there was a pubic outcry about his eavesdropping. What happened to Romney is essentially the same thing: someone illegally installed a recording equipment (broke and entered), but everybody is taking it as business as usual Another confirmation of my point - the moral level of society went well down even since Nixon's times.
ReplyDeleteGoodness, Lev, you're sounding more and more like my Puritan ancestors. Maybe you should start going to a fundamentalist megachurch. That way when the rapture comes, you'll float up to heaven with all the other good hardworking believers. Otherwise, you're just another sinner, and you'll burn in hell with the rest of us. My point is that it's always easy and emotionally satisfying to hate at a distance. Empathy takes a little more work.
ReplyDeleteI agree that school cheating has become more widespread, but I think this is because technology has made it so much easier and this in turn has fostered a culture of cheating. I don't think people are inherently more honest or moral than they were in the past. Back in the 1930s, for example, it was considered perfect acceptable and moral to drag a black man accused of a crime out of prison, torture him and hang or burn him to death in front of the entire town. People brought picnic baskets and watched the spectacle like fireworks on the fourth of July. Was this moral? Jews didn't do so well either--watch the movie Gentleman's Agreement if you need a reminder. I once met an old man who told me he used to write term papers and masters' theses for students at Columbia in the 1930s. He couldn't get in himself because he was Jewish, so this was the best he could manage (or perhaps his way of getting revenge). I'm not saying we should excuse immorality. Laws exist for a reason and they should be enforced. People who steal, cheat, perjure themselves and commit fraud deserve to be punished. But this doesn't prevent us from trying to understand why they do what they do and from realizing that the temptation to 'cut corners' is something we all confront at one point or another. A little humility goes a long way.
ctually, there is nothing wrong with your puritan ancestors. At least they understood that people must earn their bread and butter. I would prefer them not to burn witches, of course, but there is no danger of that now. There is, however, a great danger in people not being able to trust each other because you never know if that car mechanic who fixes your car, or that doctor, who treats you, or that stock broker whom you trusted with your money, or that journalist who provides you information, or that professor who teaches you, if they doing their best to deliver what you are paying for, or if they take advantage of your ignorance and cut corners not delivering what is expected. This issue has serious economic implications and it should not be dismissed and mocked in the way you do it. As far as your examples of collectively hold prejudices and awful behavior, it has nothing to do again with what I am trying to convey
DeleteOne minor correction: I meant to say to I don't think people are any LESS honest or moral than they were in the past. My examples were directed at the notion that there was somehow a golden age in the past when people were more morally upright. Obviously moral standards are a moving target--they change as the cultural climate changes. It also may be helpful to distinguish between morality, ethics and criminality--these things work on different levels and are affected in different ways by broader changes in technology and culture.
DeleteI'm also frustrated all the time by the feeling that you can't trust anyone--everyone wants to rip you off, and you have to be constantly on guard. I used to think this had something to do with moving to New Jersey--I don't remember things being like this when I was growing up. But I don't exclude the possibility that technological changes over the past few decades may have exacerbated the problem. I imagine it's a lot harder to check up on the work your car mechanic does now than it would have been in the 1950s. But what I don't understand is how you could say that government is responsible. If government is the driving force here, then things should have moved in the other direction with the waves of deregulation starting in the Reagan years and the steady decline of tax rates. Unless, perhaps, deregulation and the assault on the role of government has contributed to the problem. This seems more likely to me.
Nathan, I can provide multiple mechanisms of how social policies of last 100 years contributed to the poor state of moral in US society. But I suggest that you first listen to this podcast: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/01/david_rose_on_t.html
Deleteespecially to the part where they talk about greater good rationalization, about half-hour to the conversation. It will be easier to continue discussion of you do.