Workers of the World Unite? Beyond Karl Marx

Is globalism in retreat? Trump nixed the Pacific trade agreement. Britain voted to leave the European Union. The 2008 financial crisis cast doubt on traditional economic structures.

An article in the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs draws a different conclusion. Globalization, the article states, has “simply entered a different phase.” (Susan Lund and Laura Tyson, “Globalization Is Not in Retreat”)

The key is the digital economy. Buying and selling is done irrespective of physical boundaries. They continue to grow and overtake traditional forms of trading.

A changing work force also is part of this global economy. According to the article, “almost 250 million people live and work outside their country of birth. . . . 90 percent of them do so voluntarily to improve their economic prospects . . . ”

Further, “Economic migrants have become a major source of growth.” This growth is balanced against losses by some workers, as certain jobs have disappeared. Skills needed for other jobs have changed as well.

Interestingly enough, draconian measures to end migration on the southern border of the United States have created difficulties for some American businesses—agriculture and construction, for example.

Instead, we could understand migration as a healthy part of our global economy. Instead of attempts to stop it, we would do better to bring workers into the new economy. Steps in this direction would include better job training for American workers as well as a reasonable amount of immigration.

Lund and Tyson also suggest portable benefits and “ending the practice of tying health-care, retirement, and child-care benefits to a single employer.”

Much of the world has benefitted from increased global commerce, but unfortunately not all. Karl Marx may still return if fair treatment of workers is not a part of the global order.

Fighting Technology with a Stay in the Desert

Catherine Woodiwiss says she went to the desert “to remember that I still have a body.” On her retreat, she pitched her camp “in one of the last places on Earth where wireless data won’t reach.” (Sojourners, “Bodily Prayer,” June 2018)

Woodiwiss uses sleeping outside, listening to rivers, and hiking to turn off tech.

She compares today’s capture by technology with the ancient Gnostics’ rejection of the body. Gnostics worshiped the mind, believing the body to be evil. “Today, this elevation of the mind has returned, in the philosophy of our most popular technologies.”

The wired world was supposed to form communities of sharing. To some degree, it has done that. However, our obsession with it has also threatened our more basic communities of family, neighborhood, and face-to-face sharing.

Going to the desert isn’t the only way to put technology in its place, of course. You can limit the amount of time you spend with it—controlling it instead of it controlling you.

From time to time, you can turn it off, sit down, and lose yourself in the silence. That works, too.

They Didn’t Listen to Each Other

Michael Massing’s book Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind, chronicles the religious and political conflicts of the 1500’s. It highlights the writings and lives of two of the most important players in the conflict, the Dutch humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and the German reformist, Martin Luther.

An era of corruption cried out for reform. The newly invented printing press gave dissidents a means of appealing to the masses, similar to the power unleashed today by the internet.

Too often, however, those with different views failed to listen to each other.

The author comments on Erasmus in the year 1514, as European conflicts descended into savage bloodletting: “He wondered what it was ‘that drives the whole human race, not merely Christians, to such a pitch of frenzy that they will undergo such effort, expense, and danger for the sake of mutual destruction.’”

The young Holy Roman Emperor at this time, Charles V, “had inherited the idea of the church as a universal and absolutist institution that could not tolerate the tainting presence of Jews or Muslims . . . ”

When Martin Luther first set out his famous theses in Wittenberg, he intended only to call attention to certain church abuses. He wanted to reform the church, not rebel against it. For this and other writings, he was labeled a heretic and left the church.

His writings became more incendiary. His approval of the crushing of the peasant uprisings, as well as his anti Semitism, are horrifying.

Today, we grow increasingly shrill in cursing and labeling each other. Accusations are magnified by the ubiquitous internet. To what end?

Fatal Discourse provides a cautionary history.

Choices in Hopeless Times

“. . . even the helpless victim of a hopeless situation, facing a fate he cannot change, may rise above himself, may grow beyond himself, and by so doing change himself.” (Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.)

Victor Frankl spoke from heartbreaking experience. A Nazi concentration camp survivor, he used hopeless times to fashion a philosophy to heal the desperate.

Commenting on Frankl’s philosophy, Jason Landsel said, “. . . Frankl affirmed that people are spiritual beings with free will . . . They are thus responsible for shaping their lives by choosing and working toward meaningful goals.” (“Victor Frankl,” Plough, Winter 2018)

We may despair over choices taken by our country and the world. We rightly grieve over horrible wrongs and engage in efforts to change them.

Even so, the times may not favor us. But in another, far greater time of despair, Frankl spoke from lessons learned within the hopelessness of concentration camp inmates: “We had to teach the despairing men that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.”

Revisited: The Day They Stopped a Pardon Scandal

Since taking office, President Trump has used the power of the presidential pardon to free several people convicted of various crimes. The crimes include illegal campaign contributions, lying to the FBI about a government coverup by a former president, and contempt of court for discrimination against minorities.

As of this writing, Trump has hinted of more pardons, including that of one official serving time for a public corruption conviction, including soliciting bribes.

Some of the crimes mirror legal battles now being played out against former Trump campaign officials.

The situation recalls memories of a governor of my home state of Tennessee in the late 1970’s.

After the governor was voted out of office, but before his term expired, he began issuing pardons in what was termed a “cash for clemency” scandal. These included the commutation of a sentence for at least one convicted murderer.

The outgoing governor was a Democrat, the incoming governor a Republican. The concerned leaders of both political parties, however, convened and swore in the new governor several days before his term was to begin. Any more pardons thus were averted.

This revisit to the past is not necessarily to suggest the extreme measure of impeachment against a current president. It is to suggest that both political parties in Congress could act together to go beyond partisan politics.

They could pass legislation insuring the full investigation of Russian meddling in our elections. They could reign in questionable practices by some Trump appointees.

The Republican governor sworn in early by both parties in 1979 was Lamar Alexander, now one of Tennessee’s senators, known as a moderate. Time for moderates of both political parties to unite for honest governing.

Packaging the American Election

American elections are about advertising—the packaging of the candidates. And packaging costs money.

A reward for contributing the most money to a successful campaign may be access to the president to lobby for favored business interests. Or the contributor may be awarded a place in the president’s administration or maybe an ambassadorship.

Candidates are sold like toothpaste or cars. They are sold to appeal to the electorate, who are boxed up by paid studies into neat electoral slices.

Political campaigns are couched to appeal to those electoral slices. Like an ad for a food product, they narrow down a specific desire and zero in.

A few Americans read about products before they buy them—dietary supplements, automobiles, or floor covering, for example Too many depend on splashy advertising that appeals to desire but doesn’t offer real information.

Desires for physical products are often self-centered: to be cool or beautiful or wealthy. Vague promises, hard to quantify, are made about the product’s potential. Smart consumers search for proof that the product gives what it promises.

However, desires also can be unselfish: for strong job growth or freedom from terrorism or saving the lives of babies. Politicians cater to these desires, too. Whether candidates actually care or can actually deliver may be secondary to their desire to be elected.

Wise voters continually study reputable sources—about the country and the world, as well as about the candidates. Does the candidate’s character and past life indicate how well the candidate may carry out what they say? Do candidates actually give evidence of caring for what they promise to do?

Best to go beyond the flashy advertising, the tweetable campaign slogans, and the I’ll-give-you-the-moon speeches.

Rule by Executive Decree

Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in an interview on VOA with Greta Van Susteren, spoke of “rule by executive decree.” He was speaking specifically of the Iran nuclear agreement, but his words apply more broadly.

As Crocker pointed out, both Democratic and Republican presidents have used executive orders to carry our their policies to an unprecedented degree. Rules are issued; rules are rescinded, all by strokes of the presidential pen.

Congress is unable to pass even simple legislation. Our divisions have torn it apart, leaving it unable to function.

This position, Crocker rightly pointed out, “is not a good position for our nation to be in.” It damages our ability to act with any authority in world affairs.

Our friends wait for us to find a path. Our enemies take advantage of our flip-flopping. We can’t be trusted, they say. Just wait, and policy will change with the next president.

At some point, if we are to overcome this blockage, we must respect those with whom we disagree and work together. Name calling and angry tweets belong to unsupervised children.

Are we capable of “reasoning together”? Our survival depends on it.

Why Do So Many of Us Depend on Our Employers for Health Insurance?

I was fortunate that all my employers offered health insurance. That may be why I went early to my doctor to treat symptoms of what turned out to be cancer.

My successful treatment, done early, may be one reason I was saved from having to undergo radiation. Not only was I spared that trauma (or even early death), but the costs of treating my illness were much less.

Unfortunately, many working Americans have no health insurance. Their employers may not offer it, or they are self-employed.

Unlike most developed countries, Americans do not have universal health care coverage. This can mean delayed visits to the doctor for symptoms until the illness is more expensive to treat and more likely to be deadly.

In addition, if your employer does provide healthcare, they have one more tie to keep you working for them. You may have a tyrannical boss or even a predatory one, but if your healthcare depends on them, you may think twice before leaving a bad situation.

In addition, fewer potential entrepreneurs will begin their own businesses and experiment with new ideas if they must give up access to healthcare as a condition of striking off on their own.

Transportation infrastructure, good schools, and a strong military are our important assets for a vibrant economy. So are healthy citizens.

James Comey, John McCain, and now Rex Tillerson

The books, A Higher Loyalty by James Comey, and The Restless Wave: Good Times, Just Causes, Great Fights, and Other Appreciations by John McCain, hint of the moral war being fought in this country.

Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State, fired in the usual Trump fashion, had not fit well in the job to which he was assigned. Inexperienced in government operations, he neglected to form necessary relationships with the people who worked for him.

Nevertheless, unlike other wealthy men appointed by Trump, Tillerson didn’t work to grease wheels for the rich. He was a good man trying to do his job honorably. Speaking recently to the graduating class of Virginia Military Institute, he joined others in spotlighting the moral challenges this country faces.

“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom,” Tillerson said.

Though he did not mention Trump by name, listeners surely understood the speech as a repudiation of Trumpian practices, of labeling as fake any news that is unfavorable to the administration.

The danger of Trump so filling the airwaves with easily provable untruths is that we accept lying as just part of the game. It isn’t. We’ve never had a politician lying so often and with so little shame.

As Tillerson said, “When we as a people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may seem the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . . . If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both the public and private sector, and regrettably at times into the nonprofit sector, then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”

By the Waters of Babylon

Sometime in high school, we read the post apocalyptic short story “By the Waters of Babylon” by Stephen Vincent Benét.

It was first published in 1937. Benét and his readers no doubt remembered the horror of World War I. Many already feared another war as the Nazi era began in Germany.

For us during the Cold War, it was a sober reminder of our nuclear war fears. We were the first people to know a time when human folly could destroy the planet or at least make huge parts of it unhabitable.

As we teenagers read Benét’s story, we realized, with horror, that the wasted world the young man was traveling through was ours. The city he visited was a silent, destroyed New York City.

The story has stayed with me, given me reason to rejoice when finally, in the 1990’s, it looked like the world might give up its nuclear weapons.

Now the horror of that first reading sobers us. We thought the beast was slain, but it has returned.

Instantly Available (What if Jesus Had a Smart Phone?)

Those we admire for spiritual teaching weren’t always instantly available. In the Christian scriptures, for example, Jesus often went off by himself to pray.

On at least one occasion, his disciples had a hard time finding him. At other times, Jesus sent the disciples away so he could be alone.

Contrast these examples with our own practice of being instantly available.

Perhaps it began with the telegraph, sending news or requests for action over wires. Overnight, the recently established Pony Express disappeared, obsolete in the face of this new communication network.

We graduated to the telephone, perhaps at first found only in the nearest general store. Then we decided each office and home needed one.

A few years ago, we discovered electronic mail, leading to the ubiquitous email. Finally, at this writing, we have graduated to portable availability with our smart phones.

We are available for personal messages but also for our boss when we are on vacation. And even perfect strangers assault our privacy with robocalls and spam.

Perhaps I run the risk of missing something important by never looking at email or messages until the middle of the day. Obviously, if I’m awaiting certain messages, perhaps from family, I make exceptions and am grateful for the devices that allow this. And, of course, some people’s work does require them to be instantly available, at least for certain periods.

Most days, however, I figure if even Jesus needed to limit his availability, how much more do I.

If Jesus had owned a smart phone, I bet he would have turned it off a lot. I can’t picture him interrupting the Sermon on the Mount or his acts of compassion to the sick and dying to answer the phone.

Keep in Mind the Original Purpose of the Iranian Nuclear Deal

The agreement between Iran and various parties, including the United States, was an excruciatingly complex procedure. Nuclear experts and diplomats engaged for weeks.

Optimists hoped that the resulting deal would lead Iran toward more engagement with the rest of the world. Many ordinary Iranians celebrated when the final agreement was announced. They desire better economic opportunity and freedom from war, as do most of us. They saw the agreement as encouraging such benefits.

By and large, Iran has kept its end of the bargain. At the same time, Iran has continued to support groups engaged in fighting in Syria and in Yemen. However, the agreement’s purpose was not to solve these issues. It was meant to prevent nuclear weapons.

For those who wish to go beyond the tweet level, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has posted a thoughtful analysis. Though written on May 1, just before the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal, the article provides insight.

A Tale of Two Americans: John McCain and Donald Trump

In a forthcoming book, The Restless Wave, Arizona Senator John McCain is quoted as talking of a contest “between the high moral and the gutter.”

These and other ideas are discussed by Frank Bruni in “John McCain Battles Donald Trump with His Dying Breath.” (New York Times, May 5, 2018).

Says Bruni, “McCain’s final battle came straight to him. . . . not the one against brain cancer . . . the one against Donald Trump.”

McCain, Bruni writes, believes in “sacrifice, honor, and allegiance to something larger than oneself. Trump believes in Trump, and whatever wreckage he causes in deference to that god is of no concern.”

McCain, a Navy pilot, suffered torture after being captured by communist forces in Vietnam. Trump derides McCain for being captured. This absurdity comes from one who avoided any military service because of a “bone spur.”

When McCain and Barrack Obama ran against each other for president in 2008, McCain rejected the racial slurs against Obama. Trump participated in those slurs.

It’s hard to find a clearer example of patriotism versus selfish egotism.

Getting Away Freedom

One of the things I liked about my former job with the U.S. State Department were the trips to and from my assignments in other countries. I would hop on a plane and spend a couple of days away from daily duties.

True, I didn’t enjoy cramped airplane seating, squeezed next to strangers, but I usually lost myself in a book, avoiding chit chat with seat mates. I caught up with books and ideas and enjoyed the random discoveries. In the airports, often in foreign countries, I relaxed in my anonymity, letting my thoughts roam where they would.

I know hotel rooms can be lonely, and I certainly wouldn’t want to spend my entire life in hotel living. Nevertheless, when your work is extremely busy, as mine was overseas, the hotel evening provided an escape from the constant demands of the job, the twenty-four hour availability. I rested and took time to journal.

Today, my husband and I continue to “get away” occasionally. We spend a few days in a hideaway where we hike, read, write, and relax. We leave meetings and routine chores behind.

Getting away is a privilege not open to all. We are exceedingly thankful for the home we can return to. We love our everyday lives, the friends with whom we share, and the relaxed atmosphere of our small town, but as introverts we have always craved getting away times.

I’m also aware of uncounted numbers of refugees for whom travel is a nightmare. Would that all had a home to return to after “getting away.”

Is Democracy Dying?

“Is Democracy Dying?” is a series of essays in Foreign Affairs (May/June, 2018). They discuss the chances for democracy’s continuance, especially in the United States.

Why is the United States, for generations the world’s poster child for democracy, not immune from danger? One answer—many believe the main answer—is this country’s growing inequality.

An article in the series by Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist, compares today’s wages with wages at General Motors fifty years ago when “ . . . workers earned an average of around $30 an hour in 2016 dollars. Today, the country’s largest employer is Walmart, which in 2016 paid around $8 an hour.” (“The Age of Insecurity; Can Democracy Save Itself?”)

The cards are stacked against the working and middle classes, as we increasingly reward the more well-off. The recently passed tax legislation cuts taxes for the wealthy. This is predicted to increase the national debt and lead to calls for scaling back or abolishing programs for the less well-off, like affordable medical care or even social security, the pension system for the elderly.

Growing inequality would seem to demand, first of all, that we distribute the tax burden, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy.

As Inglehart writes, quoting overwhelming conclusions from research: “. . . extreme inequality is incompatible with democracy.”

Wealth and Jubilee

Wealth in itself seems not to be a sin according to Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Indeed, Abraham and the other patriarchs owned large herds of animals, the wealth of that time, as well as land.

However, those scriptures forbade placing wealth ahead of others’ basic needs. In addition, long term accumulation of wealth was challenged.

Landowners in the Hebrew scriptures were told to avoid reaping to the very borders of their fields during harvest. They were to leave generous portions for the poor to reap for themselves. They were to forgo that extra wealth for the benefit of the less fortunate.

Every fifty years, the Hebrew scriptures called for a Year of Jubilee. Large landowners were to give back land purchased by them that wasn’t part of their original inheritance. They had use of all the land they could buy for up to half a century, but eventually all means to wealth was to be returned to original owners.

Though Jesus indicated the difficulty a rich person experiences in entering the kingdom of heaven (as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle), he also followed this observation by saying nothing is impossible for God. Others of his parables condemned the rich, not for their riches, but for centering their lives on wealth and for ignoring the needs of the poor around them.

What are modern equivalents of not reaping to the very borders and of returning land every so often to original owners?

A just society meets the needs of all citizens for basic food, shelter, and medical care.

For a Jubilee equivalent, consider taxing wealth as well as income (wages). The amounts collected might not only support basic needs of the less-well off, but also provide for job training and education, benefitting all of society—including, of course, the wealthy.

Doonesbury’s Latest Take on Religion

Readers of the Doonesbury comic strip by Garry Trudeau on April 22, 2018, witnessed a segment spoofing the much touted white evangelical embrace of President Trump.

The “elders” of a comic strip church have now changed the definition of sin. It no longer includes actions readers would have no problem connecting with Trump.

Behavior formerly condemned as sin, but now exempted, range from lewdness and adultery to lying and pride. Particularly telling is the pastor’s last comment: “Lastly we’re willing to overlook Biblical illiteracy, church non-attendance, and no credible sign of faith.”

Followers of Christ might remember Jesus’ use of ironic humor in some of the stories he told. They got the point across quite accurately, especially to the religious leaders.

How Do I Fit My Faith Within My Nation?

The separation of religion and state, a bedrock of the U.S. Constitution, dawned in Europe after the devastating religious wars of the early modern age. This separation evolved as new nation-states tried to solve the problem of how to tie together differing faith communities.

Nations with Islamic majorities had their share of religious wars as well. Shadi Hamid (“Post-Liberalism, East and West,” Foreign Affairs; 11 April 2018) writes: “Islam, in its original form, assumed that one’s primary allegiance was to a religious community rather than a nation.” This might also be said of Europeans in times past.

Europe moved toward state churches but with toleration of dissenters. Later, the newly formed United States moved to disestablish religion from government altogether.

Well-established nation-states progressed in many areas: rule of law; public health advances; public education; transportation infrastructures; and hosts of others.

However, even within the centuries old American model of separation of church and state, conflicts have arisen between religious communities and government. Example: Should parents who believe blood transfusions are wrong be required to let their dying child be treated with them?

Protestors against the Vietnamese conflict included religious leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Joshua Heschel. A continuing protest against excessive militarism involves present day religious leaders.

The growth of secularism in both Western and Middle Eastern societies has led to new conflicts between communities within nation states. New areas include abortion and gender issues.

These inevitable differences can be eased if those in conflict pledge civility and respect for those who differ from them. They agree that protests must be non-violent.

They recognize that no perfect society is possible. They accept tension as inevitable.

Searching for the Link Between Racism and White Poverty

Gray Dorrien teaches at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, but he grew up as a lower-class white youth in Michigan.

In his article about Martin Luther King Jr (“Redeeming the Soul of America,” Plough, Spring, 2018), Dorrien discusses King’s sometimes forgotten struggles against both militarism and capitalist excess. King opposed the Vietnam conflict. In addition, he called for a halt to extreme economic inequality.

Some of King’s mentors in his seminary studies believed “black Americans would never be free as long as large numbers of whites were oppressed by poverty.”

Donald Trump’s candidacy for president, Dorrien believes, “would not have been so successful among working-class whites had Democrats been known for caring about their plight. . . . Poor and working-class white Americans believe by overwhelming margins that the federal government is their adversary.”

The growing income gap between working class and the wealthy will haunt race relations unless addressed. Trump’s election was a wake-up call.

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting and Why Is One Company Allowed to Manage so Much of Our News?

Sinclair Broadcasting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Without many of us being aware of it, this one company is on the threshold of managing a large proportion of U.S. television stations.

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting?

According to Jon Talton (“As Rules Faded Away, Sinclair Stepped In,” The Seattle Times, April 8, 2018) the company requires “right-wing talking points to be aired on its local stations…”

This not only takes away from local reporting. It also makes a mockery out of reporting “news.” The stations, if they implement the Sinclair model, become propaganda machines, not reporters of facts.

When radio appeared in 1912, the airwaves were considered public. The federal government began issuing licenses.

When television was later introduced, the Federal Communications Commissions enacted the Fairness Doctrine. It required balanced coverage of controversial issues. Though national networks appeared, like NBC and CBS, the ownership of stations was mostly local. In fact, Sinclair began as a locally owned station in 1971 in Baltimore.

Talton details how the Fairness Doctrine was eaten away over the years by lawsuits and deregulation under both Democratic and Republican administrations. “This opened the way for the success of Rush Limbaugh and imitators, who couldn’t have broadcast their shows without balance under the old rule.”

Limits on the ownership of local stations were lifted, and thousands of local stations were bought by a few big owners, including Sinclair.

According to Talton, the government watchdogs were captured by the broadcasting industry. He points to Ajit Pai, President Trump’s FCC chairman, as aggressively rolling back rules.

Local reporting is being overtaken by news slanted to particular political interests.

But, as Talton says, we can all turn off irresponsible broadcasters like the Sinclair stations. We still have the option of listening to legitimate television and radio stations and subscribing to good newspapers. We have choices. So far.