The American Dream

A while back I was engaged in a debate about American Politics, class issues, and basically what it means to work in America. The topic of the American dream rose and became a source of disagreement between my adversary and I. First I would like to try and define what exactly the American dream is. According to my interpretation, the American dream consists of "making it": finding a good job, having a family, buying a house, and living comfortably. This is a basic definition that by no means applies to every single person in American society, but that is the gist of it. For example, I may be comfortable with a thirty thousand dollar a year job, a beat up used car, a wife and cat, and a one room apartment, but hey I'm paying my bills and I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs; For somebody else, this may not suffice, that somebody else may want a six figure salary with stock options, a trophy wife, and a four bedroom two bathroom home on the lake. We're both living the American dream it's just that our relative concept of that dream is different in terms of material concerns. There is a much different definition though that permeates society on a much different level.


It seems to me that the concept of the American dream that is propagated by mainstream media, politicians, and others, is the one about getting rich if you work hard enough. And what I take the most opposition to, is that part about working hard enough. I feel this implies a couple of things: One, that if you do in fact work hard enough, and nothing else, you will be able to achieve some economic security, and two that if you are struggling to make it that you obviously are not working hard enough. I completely disagree with this. There are so many other entities that are working against someone who is trying to succeed that simply working hard enough does not always cut it. Sometimes you need to know people, or you need to catch a break and get lucky, or you need to be born into a favorable situation. This favorable situation could be being born into a wealthy household, being born white, or simply being born into a middle class family with parents who are the consummate parents greatly increasing your chances of success. These are just a few example, there are certainly others, but what the emphasis is on is that working hard enough is not the only factor that contributes to success.


The debate I was engaged in lead from this to the basic question of, "What should we do to help the poor and economically disadvantaged, if anything at all?" I posited that everyone is entitled to a certain base standard of living. It is our humanly duty to do so since every honest and law abiding person has some intrinsic worth. Actually every human life has some intrinsic worth even those who break laws. But, what I believe is that if you work in America you certainly should not have to struggle; The term "working poor" should be an anomaly and it should be an oxymoron or a paradox. If you are not working, I believe you should not be trampled upon and treated like subhuman, because as an onlooker, how can any of us know what another person's life circumstances have been? These people are also entitled to some help. Those who work contribute to the overall economic health of this country, and thus to the enormous wealth that some Americans possess. Though it may be too idealistic to insist that we all should be rich, I don not believe that it is out of the question that we insist that every working American should be able to have a roof over their head, food to eat, good health care, and education for their children. The basic question is about security, and does not security impact happiness or wellness? I've seen what economic insecurity can do to a struggling family, and there are other examples beyond my own. If you work you deserve security, and if you are out of work, aid should be available.

Why should security be only available to those with enormous wealth? The answer seems obvious to some purported realists who believe that since they worked for that wealth they have earned it; But, where would that wealth have come from if it had not been for the rest of us workers? Wealth is not just accumulated because some great man has a great mind. Wealth is something that is collectively developed, thus we should all be entitled to the fruits of that wealth. It would be simple of wealth was created in this country simply because somebody chose to work hard, be frugal, and had the intelligence and skill to acquire it; But some acquire it by dishonesty, unethical behavior, government help, AND/OR because they worked hard, were frugal, etc. Some also don't acquire it because they were ripped off by their leaders, born in to poverty, a disadvantaged situation, AND/OR because they did not work hard.


The question would be easy of wealth was simply a measure of hard work, but it is not that simple. There is also the issue of humanity. What's so wrong with helping each other out once in a while?

Knowing Too Much a Political Sin?

I was reading Politico.Com today and a particular article I was reading entitled, "Obama: The know-too-much candidate" sparked some thoughts. I touches upon the issue of elitism in American society and politics and how this is seeming to work to the detriment of the Obama campaign. From there I thought about what it means to be considered "elitist". To me, there are two kinds of elitism that we need to talk about: economic and intellectual. They often oppose each other, but at times can work together because as we know, or are taught to believe, knowledge is power and power is money, therefore, knowledge is money. However, they do diverge and there are actually intellectuals out there who aren't focused purely on money, but rather on changing society and uplifting minds.

Unfortunately, economic elitism reigns supreme and often impacts the hearts and minds of those in every economic strata of society. This pains me because this is how we have Presidents like George W. Bush. He tells people, "I think like you", "I feel your pain", or just plain "We're the same people" because he speaks plainly, off the cuff, and often in painful vernacular. However, underneath he is not like the average middle class, or working class American. The guy is filthy rich, came from a privileged family, and doesn't know the kind of struggle that the rest of America generally has to endure to get ahead. America is very often duped by rhetoric instead of paying attention to the substance. Appearance if everything since whether personally culpable or not, individuals don't search for deeper information on the issues. We read our NY Times and watch our CNN and that is it. But, as much as I like these news sources, I realize that even these institutions feed into establishment thought which takes an omniscient and often presumptuous tone; And maybe that is to be expected, after all you're relating news, you want to sounds like you know what you're talking about, but this leads people to believe one news source is enough to provide themselves with the necessary perspective to have an accurate opinion.

What this means is that a large segment of the American population disregards economic elitism, the result being the widespread belief that there is no class war in America. America is middle class right? So there is no class war because there is no class in America - WRONG. Then Americana, particularly those at the lower levels of the economic strata, loath what they regard as intellectual elitism; the elitism that we generally speak of when the word is invoked. They don't like being told what to do, they don't' like being told what is right or wrong, and they certainly don't like being told that they don't know what they are talking about. More often than not they are just perceiving things this way, though I will admit there are some pretentious, arrogant, intellectuals out there.

What is more dangerous to society, economic or intellectual elitism? I would have to say economic elitism, since we've elected a President who is an economic elitist, but plays that part of average joe, but behind the scenes he is working to the detriment of every American's interest, except for of course the upper 1% of the population. The above mentioned article touches upon Obama's fault of sounding like he knows what he's talking about, of sounding smart, of knowing too much. This is incredulous. Knowing allows one to have various perspectives and to understand the various kinds of Americans that there are. That is the kind of President I want. Not one like George W. Bush who only knows, rich, white, and southern. Sure Obama might not know what it's like to be layed off and without health care, but at least he attempts to empathize in some way, which is more we than we can say for many other politicians.

I don't know what the answer is. I understand the working class to some extent since I am an outgrowth of it. I still harbor some of the defensiveness and anxiety when you are confronted by somebody who is educated, or who may know more than I, but we all serve to benefit from moving away from this. Knowledge is power, and it allows working class folks on up to not be duped by people like George W. Bush who talk the talk, but walk a different walk that we will never experience. Intellectuals disseminate information thus uplifting all Americans who choose to listen, even if they disagree. We learn from challenging our assumptions, our ideas, and our beliefs. We need a leaders who challenge their own. Most importantly though, we need to become class conscious, shun economic elitism, and absorb more information as individuals so we can fight the way our country is going. Is America a Democracy or a Business? Democracy is about freedom of thought, belief, and understanding, it is about being our own intellectuals. Business is about competition, profit, greed, and riches at whatever cost. Right now it is confusing, but it's up to Americans to stop being duped.


The above opinions are associated with the following article.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9925.html

Carter Meets With Hamas Officials

Ok, so I'm not going to profess to be anything near an expert on middle east affairs, in particular the contentious situation between Israel and Palestine; I do however, try to pay attention to what is going on and I find he animosity and opposition expressed toward former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to be both provocative and disagreeable. United States officials have condemned Carter for, "engaging in diplomacy with a group they consider a terrorist group." I'm sure this is an outgrowth if America's very close relationship with Israel, their key ally in the region, and it's also a very predictable one for various reasons.

Carter has been quoted as saying thus, "I'm not a negotiator. I'm just trying to understand different opinions and communicate, provide communications between people that won't communicate with each other," WOW, what an idea! How dare he try to bridge the communication gap between the United States and an organization that they classify as an enemy! I don't think we should ever view diplomacy or dialogue with an "enemy" as being detrimental to anything other than this inexorable push the United States always has for war and bullying opposition. Too often our country turns a deaf ear to anybody who disagrees which only compounds the problems and contention that we face from other countries. Establishing a discourse between two opposing parties is always beneficial since it can build a rapport between nations, and possibly even lend itself to more amicable relations. Hamas may be conducting terrorist operations, but who the terrorist is and who the victim is will always be a matter of perspective and is completely subjective. To some nations we are terrorist are we not? Terrorism should be defined by the act, not by the pretext which it is operated under, or the nation that commits it.

So where does this leave us? We should laud Carter for trying to understand the opposition. Often when complaints are raised, even in our own personal lives, you can pacify the opposition simply by holding them with some regard, by taking them as legitimate grievances. Think about it; Do you listen to someone when they assign universal labels to you in an assuming and pretentious manner? Absolutely not, one takes offense and shuts down their senses of logic and reason. Of course it is much harder to control one's self than to drop bombs and call out the troops. This where it is important for us as citizens of this country to not buy in to the beat of the war drum, to denounce rhetoric that fosters distance rather than diplomacy. Idealist yes, but not unreal or impossible if you think about it.

Now I know what you're thinking you jingoistic flag waving patriots! Remember 9/11! Kill the terrorists! You're supporting terrorism! No, my friends you're supporting terrorism; whether it's state sanctioned or not, the United States is guilty of terrorist acts much like other countries and non state organizations out there. Think about our activities in Latin America....the U.S. has conducted operations on innocent civilians, killing numbers that would pail in comparison to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks. And no, I am not condoning their actions, these people didn't have it coming, our government maybe, but not the innocent civilians, but they're the ones who are caught in the middle of these squabbles and who end up dying, not our leaders or rulers. So appreciate what Carter is doing, he could be saving your sons and daughters from going to war.

Again, I don't condone terrorism from any country, including my own. I would denounce it no matter what the country. I find it irritating when those in our country paint others terrorist in complete disregard for our own troubled past. To disagree is understandable and expected between members of the world community, but what is wrong with talking things out? Yes it takes more time, yet it may mean that the U.S. has to give something up to find that happy medium, and yes it is very very hard work, but the results are much longer lasting than war. War and distrust begets much of the same. So thank you, Jimmy Carter, for trying to understand an issue before drawing conclusions and making judgment calls, I wish our leaders currently in office would take your lead.

All quoted material is from the following article from CNN.COM.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/18/carter.hamas/index.html?eref=rss_topstories