Patriotism

Sharon November 6th, 2008

I am a firm believer in the people.  If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”  - Abraham Lincoln

I was busy yesterday with the crisis at my son’s school, so it is only today that I get to reflect a little bit on the election, and more importantly, on America.  I was a little surprised at how delighted and moved I was yesterday - you see, I have my doubts about Obama.  But the acceptance speech was quite something, and I think that there’s a measure of hope, even beyond the remarkable fact that America, a state that has since its very inception, been inscribed with racial divisions, crossed an important line.  It didn’t magically transform our history, but it immediately reshapes the narrative in important ways.

What remains to be seen is not so much what kind of man Obama is now, but what kind of president the crisis he inherits will make him into, and what kind of people Americans will shape themselves and their president into. 

How is this different than asking who Obama is?  Well, I think it is safe to say that the majority of American presidents have been, if not mediocrities, mixed blessings.  Simon, my 7 year old, is fascinated by the history of the American presidency, and he asks me “who were the best” “who were the worst” and why all the time.  And for the most part, in most times, the answer is “a little of both.”  There are some truly awful presidents out there (obviously not in any way excluding the lame duck in office), and some really great ones. 

The really great ones tend to be great not because they were essentially great men - although sometimes they were that too - but it isn’t clear to me, reading history that the best of our presidents, in ordinary times, would have been much more than on the good side of mixed.  But two things have meant that for the most part, in America’s times of greatest crisis, it has gotten some truly remarkable presidents, and a history worth loving and valorizing.  The first is that the people have had the courage to risk something, to venture into difficult territory and choose a man they believe has what is needed.  Manifestly, that is true today.  And the second is that the responsibilities and courage demanded by events has often harrowed the presidents facing vast crises into men of more than ordinary greatness.

It would be a mistake to ask now whether Obama is our Lincoln or FDR yet - Lincoln was not fully Lincoln, in the sense we think of him at his inauguration.  Read the First Inaugural Address and then the Second, to get a very simple, broad sense how even a short period in office transformed Lincoln, from a remarkable man into a great one. I open up the possibility that even if Obama is not now quite the man we need, the people and the office, the crisis and the power might just render him into something close to it, as it has done for past presidents.  FDR was not fully ready to betray his class and reallocate wealth as he entered the presidency.  Lincoln was not ready to take the necessary steps to end slavery at the outset of his presidency. 

 Both became great, rather than beginning in greatness - and in some ways, this is a better, more glorious thing - for who among us was born great? But if events can bring greatness, each of us can achieve a small measure of it.  And in each case, not only did the president become great as he faced his enormous crisis, but so did the people under him, those who sacrificed and transformed their lives, whose courage shone so powerfully that they reshaped their president, as flames burnish and reshape cold metal.

I do not know whether Obama is the right man, but I do have faith that we are the right people in this particular moment.  I also believe that we are facing a crisis quite as deep as the civil war, and in many ways, more like the civil war than World War II.  This is  simply because our present disaster, for all it’s world implications, is a deeply internal crisis, one that will force us to consider a question most of us resist examining too closely - what will we love our America for?  What will America be, in a shifting world? 

We are facing a deep crisis - our economy is simply falling apart, while our ecology and the underlying source of our economic power - our energy supply - is threatened.  And Obama is coming to us, like Lincoln, like Roosevelt, at a moment in which the easy solutions to these crises are no longer possible. It is a painful truth, but a truth nonetheless that we are no longer living in a moment where there are simple investments, easy outcomes, or a hope of avoiding great difficulty.  No matter what Obama or anyone else does, America will no longer be the America that most of us grew up with - we will no longer be able to rely on old claims to greatness, no longer be secure in our wealth, no longer be able to go one way, while the rest of the world goes theirs. 

At fundamental levels, our structures must change - we must take back the power that has been stripped from the people over the last decades, and particularly over the last eight years.  We must find new ways to organize ourselves in order to meet basic needs, and in order to find a way to live that keeps at its center, the future of the next generations. 

We must change the stories of our culture, the ones that help inform our understanding of who we are.  We are no longer frontiersmen, pushing the limits, moving on and growing into the next place and the next.  Instead, as Wendell Berry puts it, we must remember that the counternarrative of those who came and stayed and loved a place.  That narrative of stopping and staying must become our central a counter narrative to the account failed story of eternal growth and “always-more.”

We have been patriots for a long time based on a certainty about our place in the world that is shifting.  Some of us are angry that the country we loved has been cheapened by theft and injustrice, and have come to feel that our patriotism rings false.  Others kept their patriotism, but struggled more and more to find present, rather than past glories to hang that love upon.   Fortunately, we neither need to be ashamed of a false patriotism nor deny that America’s place in the world has shifted.  The roots of patriotism lie in the word itself, and under our feet.  The hope for our future greatness, the hope for our future, for “ourselves and our posterity” is in the soil on which we stand.  The word “patriotism” which comes from the idea of the “patria” or the land as father to us all, is the place to begin - we need not root our love for our country in the distant past or a flawed present - we can root it solidly in the ground that we love and nurture and grow in.  And we can make that ground yield forth an unimaginably hopeful future - one in which each generation no longer takes just a little more from the next, but in which each generation more deeply regenerates their place, and brings forth more fruit to enrich their children. 

I’d like to look again at Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, a piece of writing I was taught to love by a wonderful teacher, John Burt, because it is so tremendously apt to the situation we find ourselves in.  Although we are not at war, most Americans now face a situation unanticipated, in which all the solutions that both parties have offered and most of us once believed in  are inadequate to the terrible situaton we now face. No one will come out of this with everything they need, with “their prayers answered fully.”  All of us will pay the piper for a situation we did not fully create, and yet, each participated in.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
 

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

I think most of us fear for the future, grieve for those already suffering, both here and around the world, and tremble for our children and grandchildren and the generations that will have to live in our warming and impoverished world.  I think all of us, if we could will it, would change our circumstances, would rewind the last decades and do things differently, lest we not face this terrible unwinding of our imagined future.  Those of us who do pray, we probably all pray the same things “Oh please, G-d, protect us all.”

And the answer comes back to us, through reason and from G-d, for those of us who hear that voice - the answer is that our future is literally in our own hands.  The man we have made President may or may not rise to the difficult circumstances he faces.  I hope and pray he does.  And whether he does in part depends on us.  If we make it necessary, if we become great, well, perhaps he will follow.  Or perhaps it won’t matter that much if he doesn’t.

We are told over and over again that the American people will not sacrifice, that they are lazy, they lack courage, they are not the equals of the people who came before us and gave us pieces of a history worth believing in.  I do not know what kind of president we have, but I know, if I know any thing in the world that that last is a slander, a lie.  Each of us has the capacity to become greater than we are at present, to invoke the power of past generations, and past acts of heroism, and become what we need to be - the people who will preserve an America worth loving.  So far, most people still don’t quite realize what is needed, but I have faith that if we choose, we who have coasted on cheap energy and plenty of wealth will find in ourselves that we are not so very far removed from our past, and that we are tied in the soils and by our courage to a future worth having.  I have hope that we can create an America and an American people so deeply worth loving that our current and future leaders are shaped and transformed and burnished in greatness, as we transform and burnish ourselves.

Shalom,

 Sharon

The Competence Project

Sharon November 5th, 2008

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -Robert A. Heinlein

I have an embarassing confession to make - I’m not handy at all, and I have absolutely no excuse for it.  You see, unlike my husband, who grew up in an apartment where a super handled any fixing, I grew up with two parents who were both extremely handy.  There was my Dad, who smelted his own bullets in our furnace, fixed things and taught me to handle a knife, an axe and screwdriver early on.  And, just in case I should try and get away with whining that I didn’t learn because I was a girl (total nonsense, my Dad would have had no truck with that), my step-mother is an extremely talented woodworker, who I got to watch renovate our home more or less by herself through my whole adolescence.  Sue is incredibly talented - I have beautiful bookcases, my sons have beautiful wooden toys and a gorgeous toy box - and whenever she comes to my house, runs about fixing everything that Eric and I are ignoring.  She tried hard to pass on her skills - and it didn’t take.  As a teenager, I was busy getting ready to live the life of the mind - the fact that even minds get broken toilets and funky wiring didn’t really register until after I left home.

Basically, the reason I’m not handy is that I’ve never bothered to really get the skill set in any coherent way - somehow when I was younger I wasn’t paying enough attention and didn’t realize what I was missing out on, and then I was busy getting other skill sets into order - busy learning gardening and farming, food preservation and mending (all, btw, skills I could have gotten from someone I was related to, but mostly didn’t - I sometimes wonder what the heck I was doing during my adolescence). 

Eric has the same lacks, with better excuse, although it is more embarassing for him, since he’s a guy, and thus “supposed to” know how to build stuff and fix things - particularly out in these parts where most of my neighbors pretty much could build their own houses from scratch with a McGyver-like collection of odds and ends.  We could probably make a plastic model of a house out of my son’s legos - but I wouldn’t bet on it not falling over.  We joke that there are two kinds of people in the world - the ones who have a window that won’t open and immediately rush over to fix it, because it shouldn’t be that way, and those who say “ok, I’ll just open the other window.”  We’re both the second kind, and there’s a price to that kind of laziness.

Now we’ve both been forced to learn some basics - we’ve gotten fairly good at small engine repair maintaining the ratty riding mower and the rag tag cars we’ve had over the years, and we can build simple, box shaped things.  They tend to look a little funny, though.  For a while I avoided most woodworking because I was pretty constantly pregnant or nursing and didn’t want the chemical exposure (and yes, I know there are ecological options out there), but that’s not been a good excuse for a while yet. 

And one of my New Year’s resolutions (yeah, I know it is only November, but we Jews get our New Year early) is to fix this gap.  Time for me to really understand how things go together, and get handy - at least enough.  I keep putting it off, though, because I really hate feeling incompetent. I remember when I first was learning to knit - I knew that eventually it would become as natural as breathing, but boy did I hate every single second of the period before it did - it was so frustrating, so maddening.  Why couldn’t I get good faster, dammit?!!  I don’t like to be bad at things - and of course, a period of being bad at things is required in order to get good.  It is easier not to try, to complain I can’t do it.

This was banged home to me the other day, when Isaiah, who is nearing five and in kindergarten, echoed my own internal whining.  You see, Isaiah is learning to read - and it isn’t his favorite thing.  He’s a natural at math and science, but unlike his big brother Simon, who picked up reading at 3 and never looked back, this language stuff is work for Isaiah.  Now don’t get me wrong - we’re in no hurry, and we’re not pushing him hard - he’s not even five yet, and we believe it is perfectly normal for him not to read for a while yet.  But we do require that he practice his letters and pre-reading activities, and do a little bit of practice sounding things out - maybe 10 minutes a day in total.

Well, yesterday, Isaiah told me that “I’ll do my reading work tomorrow.  Or the next day.  I’m not very good at it.”  I told him that I thought he was doing just fine, actually - that he was doing very well for his age.  And he told me that he liked math better, because it was easy, and he liked being good at things, so he didn’t want to learn to read if it meant not being good.  Well, out of the mouths of babes, as they say.

And I heard myself telling Isaiah that while it was ok that he didn’t want to read yet, that reading wasn’t one of that category of things that it matters much whether you are naturally talented or not - everyone needs to learn.  Barring some very serious disabilities, we pretty much accept that everyone is supposed to learn to read, and reasonably well (we’ll ignore the question of whether this happens or not).  I heard myself saying gently that there are certain things everyone needs to know, and reading is one of them.

And, of course, fixing things and being able to adapt your basic environment is too.  And of course, I don’t want my kids picking up the notion that learning how to do that isn’t just as important as learning how to read.  I want them to be as competent as they can be with language and with tools.  I was struck by my own cowardice - like Isaiah, I don’t want to be bad at it, so it is easier not to do it.  But the difference is that Isaiah’s only four, and he doesn’t really have to read right now.  We can let the whole thing go for a year or more, and be none the worse for it.  But the reality is that we might not have the money to pay people to fix our stuff soon - and I’m well past the age that I should be doing the work.

Periodically I hear others (and I do this myself) say “I’m not good at X” For X you can insert just about anything - growing food, sewing, cooking, repairing things.  Now sometimes this goes to a real physical disability that has to be overcome - or can’t.  There are things those of us with physical or intellectual limitations may never be able to do - just like there are people who will never master their times tables or learn to read.  But barring such disabilities, there are some things in life that the general consensus requires that we have a certain basic, minimal skill set in.  For example, children may come to reading or arithmetic with great difficulty or great ease, but the assumption is that they need to learn to read and do their times tables.  They may never do them naturally, but they have to be able to.  And the truth is that for most people who received an adequate education, they can read and figure, if laboriously.  

 There are large chunks of basic subsistence skills that we really need to treat as part of the same basic categories as reading and math - things that every adult person should have a certain level of minimal competence in, barring a true physical or mental barrier to them.  I’m not sure I’d use Robert Heinlein’s list quoted above, but you can come up with a decent one that isn’t too far off  and that prepares us for this new world where we can’t buy our way out of so many problems- all of us need to know how to cook a decent meal, handle an injury or illness crisis, tend a sick kid, fix a broken step, darn a sock, dehydrate a tomato, tell a story, grow a potato,  build a sun oven, bake a loaf of bread, put up fence, season cast iron, mend a rip, care for a dying person, sing a baby to sleep, clean a toilet, knit or crochet a sock, fix a roof, use a weapon, plant a tree,  immobilize a limb, make someone understand a counter-intuitive idea, save seed,  sharpen a knife, chop garlic, make beer, have courage, fix a bicycle tire, make soup, give a pep talk…

The truth is that for most people, with most things (and again, I know there are exceptions), “I’m not good at it” is a cop out.  The reality is that most of us aren’t going to be very good at everything - some things will always be struggle, and as long as we’ve got the time and money and energy to find alternative ways of dealing with it, it is perfectly fine to say that I want to reserve my struggling for things I care more about.  What’s not ok is telling our kids, or ourselves the lie that it is ok to use our fear of failure or our hatred of being bad at things as an excuse for picking up skills.

The other thing it isn’t ok to use as an excuse for this is division of labor, particularly by gender or class roles.  That’s not to say that there aren’t jobs that it won’t make sense to contract out to a partner or someone who needs the money - there’s nothing wrong with you saying “I have more money than time right now, I’m going to get someone to build in those pantry shelves.”  Nor is it bad to acknowledge that your 6′3, 200lb husband is probably better at hauling hay bales than a 5′1, 90lb spouse. 

But the reality is that spouses sometimes go away, and things happen when they aren’t around - and occasionally, they die or marriages break up.  Sometimes spouses are away just as the cattle need feeding, and the money dries up even though you really need those shelves.  The wrong attitude here is the “my wife does the cooking, so I don’t have to” or “I’m very important and I make lots of money, so I don’t have to know how to fix my bike.”  Instead, the idea is that all of us be able to handle the basics - we can hire our friend who is a talented seamstress to if there’s cash, but if rips need mending and there’s no money, we need to be able to make the clothes wearable.  All the men and boys need to know how to do “women’s work” at least to a competent minimum, and vice versa (and yes, I’m using the term ironically).  Everyone gets up on the roof, at least enough to be able to know how to keep the rain off - and then, if you are fortunate enough to have someone else in your life willing to go up in the rain and fix it, well, you can be grateful, but not dependent.

I’m going to bet that everyone one of us has a little guilty spot right now, a thing they know they should learn, a skill they’ve been avoiding picking up, something that they’ve already tried and put down in frustration because they sucked at it.  So I’m about to give you folks a bit of a challenge - I invite you to take a look at the holes in your own competence, pick one that needs filling, and get to work on filling it. 

My project is to get handy - I want to be able to build my own bookcases and fix my own plumbing.  I’ll be posting regularly about how it is all going, and I’m hoping for lots of support as I make plenty of stupid, incompetent mistakes. In turn, I really invite you to tell us about all your failures and inadequacies as you gain a skill you really need.  We promise, we aren’t going to let you fail.  And maybe you’ll inspire the rest of us to keep going, or to try yet another skill after we master the basics of this one. 

So who is in?

Sharon

Local Folks - Any Ideas?

Sharon November 5th, 2008

Well, the good news is that the Bush regime is on its way out, and maybe later I’ll write more about that, but for now, I’m hoping to use the tremendous knowledge of my readers just one more time.

You see yesterday, Eli’s school was inexplicably closed.  And in the afternoon, we got a phone call from Eli’s third grade teacher, in tears.  A water main broke at the school, and flooded the building.  The building is badly damaged, and won’t be safe for kids until major repairs are made.

Eli attends the Crossroads Center for Children, in Glenville, New York.  It is a program for kids on the autism spectrum from 2-12.  We’ve been very lucky to have him there  - it is a wonderful program, serving kids from every school district in the greater Albany area.  This year, Eli’s wonderful teacher is really pushing him, and he’s responding beautifully - he loves to go to school, and is happy every morning to get on the bus.

Now we’ve been operating for a long time on the assumption that at some point, disruptions in the system might require us to homeschool Eli - and of course, we have the luxury of one of us being home with the other kids all the time, so for us, this is a tough situation (because Eli loves school, is losing services and time, and because disruptions in his routine are not Eli’s favorite thing) but pretty doable (and a good reminder that preparedness isn’t just for Zombie attacks ;-)).  But for single parents, two parent working families and kids who are less mellow than Eli, or who really need their PT, this is a complete disaser.  There are more than sixty kids in Eli’s school, including the little guys - and for a lot of them, this is a really bad situation - and tremendously tough on their families and the children.

When Eli’s teacher called, she said they were desperately looking for somewhere else to reopen - and as soon as possible.  But that means finding a facility somewhere in the region that can handle a large influx of kids, including disabled kids.  I have one idea, but I know those of my readers who live in the area are tied into networks I don’t have any access to - so I’m asking for your help.  If you live out this way, and you have any ideas for a facility that could handle temporary accomodations for a large number of kids who really need a place to learn, I’d be tremendously grateful to you, and so would everyone in the Crossroads Community. 

It doesn’t have to have a cafeteria, and I think the location is somewhat fungible (because the school mostly serves kids whose school districts have no placement for them, they are bused from all over), but it would need to be safe, ideally have some kind of contained outdoor or indoor playspace (this might be something that could be done without if they had to), and be able to handle 8-10 classrooms and some associated services.  People would be willing to cram, I suspect, and make do - but they do need some space.

If you have any ideas, please post them here or email me at jewishfarmer@gmail.com.  Again, Eli won’t love this, but he’ll be fine - we can integrate him into our homeschool.  But I’m really worried about the kids whose parents face losing jobs while they take time off to care for them, the kids who will radically regress or suffer physical consequences, and the loss of structure, familiarity and stability with people who love and respect them for all the kids. I’d be really grateful for any help, and so would  a lot of other parents.

 Sharon

Vital, Ecological and Jewish

Sharon November 4th, 2008

A while back I mentioned the fall Kallah, my synagogue’s annual scholar-in-residence weekend.  We’re bringing Rabbi Everett Gendler, the father of Environmental Judaism, who will be delivering a Dvar Torah, and three lectures during the course of the weekend.  I would invite anyone interested in attending to consider joining us.  There is a charge for the meals (and advance reservations are needed, so if you’d like to join us, please reserve ASAP), but all the lectures and religious services are free and open to the public.

That said, the food will definitely be worth it.  It is a local meal, showcasing the best of local and kosher vegetarian cooking.  All events will take place at my shul, Congregation Agudat Achim in Niskayuna, NY.  This project is going to take up a lot of my time in the next few days, and I’m really excited about it - this marriage of my faith and my principles is something really exciting.

All the details are here: http://www.agudatachim.org/gpage18.html - and yes, you can still reserve for the meals by emailing.

 On Friday night, we’ll have services at 7:30 pm, with Rabbi Gendler delivering a Dvar Torah (sermon) on the parsha, Lech Lecha (the journey of Abraham and Sarah). 

On Saturday there will be morning services, followed by a local foods luncheon (and the food will be totally amazing) at 12:30 and Rabbi Gendler’s first talk “Eating Green, Eating Jewishly” - addressing the questions of how our ecological and theological concerns about food are to be addressed.

On Saturday night we’ll have a special Havdalah service (which marks the end of the Sabbath) at 7pm, and then Rabbi Gendler’s second talk, “Teaching Shalom in the Shadow of Tibet: Exploring the Links between Two Diaspora Faiths” building in part on his work helping Tibetan refugees find ways to resist non-violently. Rabbi Gendler recently returned from Ladakh, where among other things, he led Rosh Hashanah services in what he jokingly calls “The Dalai Lama’s Shul” - ie, the monastary in which the Dalai Lama (who attended) lives.  The Saturday night talk will be followed by a dessert table, featuring more local foods - again, reservations are required for that.

Sunday morning, Rabbi Gendler will give his final talk, after a 10am brunch hosted by our synagogue Men’s Club.  The talk, “Let the Sun Shine In: The Eternal Light, Solar Power and the Sun Ceremony” will explore links between how we power our religious institutions and homes and the forthcoming, every-28 years ritual of blessing the sun (to be done this April) - Rabbi Gendler argues that we have a halachic (ie, following Jewish law) obligation not to power the eternal light that burns in each synagogue with fossil fuels.  This is a question he’s lived - when he was Rabbi in Lowell, MA in the 1980s, his was the first synagogue in the US to put solar panels on their roof.  Again, there’s a fee for the meal, but the talk is free and open to the public.

 If you wish to join us for any of the food, please send an email ASAP to rmendels@nycap.rr.com - when space runs out, it runs out, so make your reservation now.  And remember, all the lectures are free - we’d love to have you join us.   Directions to the synagogue are here: http://www.agudatachim.org/directions.html.  I hope to meet some of you there!

Sharon

Equity, Equity, Equity

Sharon November 3rd, 2008

The day before the election, I suppose I should write a post about who I think you should vote for for president.   Yawn. The thing is, is it really going to shock anyone that a New York leftist prefers Obama?  Did you really need me to say it?  I’ll probably actually vote for a third party candidate, since my vote here in New York is worth jack, but if I voted where my vote counted, I’d vote Obama. 

Now that we’ve dispensed with that, let’s get down to the real issues, the real questions that are going to face our country.  We haven’t been able to do that, since this election has been taking over the public discourse since G-d gave the Torah to Moses, but it is time to get over that.  The single biggest issue facing the next president - and he’s going to have to deal with it one way or another - is going to be the question of Equity.  That’s a subject that hasn’t made it to the national table in a very, very long time. 

Why equity?  Well, first of all, we’re entering a major Depression, not a little tiny economic downturn, but a crisis.  And what happens in major economic crises is that people get very poor, often hungry, cold and scared, and they get angry.  And there’s a lot to be angry about.  Over the last thirty years, real wages have fallen and wealth has concentrated - and it is being rapidly concentrated further by the massive reallocation of what remains of our wealth into already wealthy hands.   One of the reasons I think that McCain/Palin’s “Obama will share the wealth” narrative has failed to put them in the lead is simply this - more and more Americans are suddenly realizing that they may soon have more in common with the people who need to be shared with than with the ones who lose.

Now I should take this moment to demand government action - to begin programs and tax relief that allocates wealth around. And such may happen.  But I’ll tell you a secret - I think it would be great if the government led the way on this subject - it would alleviate a lot of suffering.  But in the end, I think the result will be the same whether they lead or whether they follow.  Because if they wait for Americans to take up pitchforks and torches, the shifts will be even more radical - and that’s not a bad thing either.  As historian Sheldon Wolin observes, almost all the major shifts to greater sharing of wealth and power have come in response to the anger of the people.  Howard Zinn argues that FDR’s Great Society came about simply because people, acting in response to the exigencies of the Depression discovered their remarkable power - and the government responded to ensure that no one noticed that the ruling class might not be needed at all.  One way or another, hard times mean that equity issues are coming to the table.

The truth is that most research about hard times shows that most people are willing to do what is necessary to deal with a situation - but their primary concern is equity - justice and fairness.  That is, people will make do with rationing, with great burdens and difficult times - they will even find coping mechanisms and what historian Timothy Breen calls “rituals of non-consumption” that compensate them for the consumption they used to engage in.  What they won’t tolerate is injustice and unfairness.  This is the conclusion of a recent book about Britain during and after WWII, reviewed here:

Two fundamental, timeless lessons emerge from the whole experience. First, that most people will broadly accept straitened times if they are genuinely convinced of their necessity and that there is no alternative. Second, that social cohesiveness during such an unwelcome turn of events will rest to a large degree on the extent to which the pain is administered on an equitable, transparent basis. Even so, should the economic downturn prove severe, it is still likely to be a psychic shock for anyone under, say, the age of 40, for whom the austerity years are not even a folk memory. The process will be a huge challenge to the legitimacy of our democratic political system, though not inconceivably may do wonders to strengthen and reaffirm that rather frayed legitimacy.”

 I found the same thing when I researched the question of whether some kind of rationing system could ever be brought to the general public - in fact, historically people have even liked rationing, when they felt its primary role was to make sure that pretty much everyone labored under the same constraints - and their fury knew no bounds when those constraints were violated. 

But there are other reasons equity is going to have to come to the table.  The first is climate change.  Over the last year, most of the major nations of the Global South that contribute most to global warming have simply declined to make major cuts in their emissions.  Why?  Because without equity, they are being asked to impoverish their citizens while we are being asked to turn the thermostat down - unless the question of a fair share comes to the table.  The truth is that we will not address climate change until we address the question of equity at an international level.  Nearly everyone would rather not discuss this - but it will come to the table, sooner or later, simply because we have no choice. I hope it will be sooner not later, but climate change will push itself onto the world agenda - and into our daily lives.  And at the root of climate change is the recognition we cannot go on as we are.

Then there’s the food issue - Aaron Newton and I have just completed editing a book about the question of whether and how the world and this country can feed themselves in a warming world, in the face of rising energy costs.  And what we’ve concluded is simply this - the issue comes down to equity.  In the end, the central question of our times is going to be food allocation - as I put it the other day “Is there dinner?  Do I get any?”  And the only way to address the food crisis - a crisis that is only going to get bigger as time goes on - is this.  To make sure we deal with the question of what constitutes a fair share - that we divide the work and the food more justly than we have, not in the perfection of human nature, not in an ideal world, but in this one.   And this problem isn’t just going to play out on the world level - although it will do that too as very angry people who recognize that the deaths of their kids and their lives of poverty were created, in part, by the actions of those who fed food to their cars and were willing to see them die so they could keep on the road.

One of the remarkable things we’ve found in our research into food systems is this - in any place that has had to or wanted to radically reduce its use of petrochemicals in agriculture, what is really rapidly discovered is that you can do that - but not on a massive scale.  In Cuba, in the Soviet Union, in shifts to organic production in the US and UK, generally speaking what shows pretty clearly in the research is this - you can farm with few or no chemical inputs, whether you do it because you want to or because you have to (and we suspect many of us will have to) - but not rapidly on massive farms of thousands of acres - period.  Huge scale agriculture is simply not amenable to rapid shifts away from fossil fuels - so if we are to deal with our current crises, and keep food coming in, we’re going to have to make sure that land is in the hands of people who can grow food on it on a reasonable scale.  That means one of the great questions of the coming decade is this - how will the people get access to land to grow food on.  And that, fundamentally, is an equity question too - particularly as foreclosure pushes more and more people out of the pieces of land they could be growing on.

The word socialist has been thrown around a lot during this campaign, mostly because people really do think that the only choices in figuring out how to live are capitalist and communist/socialist.  I think that’s a fundamentally false way of thinking about this - first of all, we all know that all economic systems are hybrids (lord knows, I’m not sure you can even call our economic system capitalism anymore) - there is no pure socialism, no pure capitalism in practical reality.  Those nuances we ignore matter.  For example, greater equity could be achieved by removing some of the private from private hands, or it could be achieved through a capitalist distributist model, in which who gets to hold the private is limited.

But in some ways, I think that the capitalist/socialist discussion misses the point.  In the interview we did with her for our book, Helena Norberg-Hodge, author of _Ancient Futures_ and _Bringing the Food Economy Home_ made what I think is the essential point -  that scale matters as much as economic system:

“…I think it’s very important that we realize that communism or capitalism or even socialism are all large-scale, centralized systems and therefore I prefer not to talk about the problem as being capitalism.  The reason why I don’t is that it in many minds conjures up the notion that socialism or communism are better and I personally believe that the intentions behind communism and socialism are broader and in a certain way more noble, but I don’t think it’s just that the centralized power they entail, in both socialism and communism, was the problem socially, but I also see them as fundamentally anti-ecological, because they were top-down, centralized systems that also then foisted monoculture in terms of agricultural production, but when we talk about agricultural production, we’re basically talking about all the activities from which we derive our basic needs: forestry, for building, fiber, building materials.”

Norberg-Hodge’s argument, which I entirely agree with, is that the whole discussion finally misses the point.  What is needed will be a hybrid again of private and public resources, of things we call “socialist” and those we call “capitalist” but the salient point is this - that power, and autonomy and what really matters have to be more widely distributed, the scale of management radically reduced and that equity, in the end, is more about the right to self-governance than whether we reduce taxes or reallocate wealth that way.  The central problem will be how to get the tools of self-sufficiency - the ability to feed and clothe and care for yourself into ordinary people’s hands again. 

And that provides a measure of an answer to the problem of how we will deal with equity on a world scale as well - because in the end, I think the truth is that there’s no real way to deal with the question of equity without changing the typical American lifestyle.  The good news is that a lot of us are vaguely (or more than vaguely)  uneasy about the changes that our lifestyle has wrought in our lives anyway - it is an oversimplification to say they haven’t made us happier, because it is more than that - they not only haven’t made us happier, they haven’t made us better.  And that may be the really salient point - that one of the things that would make us happier is the sense that we’re living a more ethical, more just, more natural life, and that we have more power of over our own destinies.  And that’s not possible without dealing with the equity question.

The really good news is that dealing with equity isn’t a one directional loss - it isn’t that if Americans start living a more equitable life they simply lower their standard of living.  They raise our access to power, to self-sufficiency and the confidence in engenders.  Greater equity gives us institutions on a scale we can comprehend and a richness in connection to the world around us.  It is truly a little bit about using less - but even more about being richer.

I hope, personally, that Obama wins the election.  But even if you don’t share my hope, the thing that I’m really hopeful about is this - that in some senses, it doesn’t matter who wins, because we’re going to require whoever “leads” to follow our lead, to address the equity issue.  Presidents come, and thankfully, this president is going.  But presidents are only presidents - the people, well, that’s something else.

 Sharon

« Prev - Next »