In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned in his declaration the famous “unalienable” or natural human rights that were to be a cornerstone of this Nation’s political philosophy. It wasn’t particularly original. Popular philosophies in the 18th century from men such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson had reflected on similar natural rights of Man, and George Mason had only weeks before written his Virginia Declaration of Rights using a similar phrase. However Jefferson, with Benjamin Franklin’s advice, had substituted the pursuit of happiness for (the pursuit of) property, the word used by such as Mason and Locke. This pursuit of happiness, which has been quoted a billion times in America, both in political and non-political contexts, is a befuddlement to me. The pursuit of property I understand, but just what does happiness mean? Of course the unalienable right is the pursuit, but in a real sense is it the pursuit of something which is actually attainable?
Are you happy? That is one of the most common questions in the English language, or probably most languages (but certainly not all). It, or an equivalent question, is asked by parents to children, children to parents, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, therapist to patient, and so on. Although the asking is easy, the honest answering of it is extraordinarily difficult. It’s so difficult that most people really don’t answer it at all. They may say “oh sure” or “most of the time” or “things are tough” or “I try to be” or “I’m feeling great”. That’s what we might say, but mostly we’re thinking: I have no idea. We might answer with conviction that we’ve been pursuing happiness, but why is it so difficult to definitively answer whether we’re there or not? We’re not even sure what it feels like… contentment?... tingly?... warm?... rich?
One could probably answer with assurance that “sometimes I’m happy and sometimes I’m not”, which might better reflect day to day life. That conclusion may, however, be confusing happiness with, say, joy. We know what joy is. It happens on a roller coaster, shared passion with one’s love, watching a good movie, or eating something delightful for example. It’s entirely acceptable that completely miserable people might have many joyful experiences. I believe the reason it is so hard to conclude whether your life is happy or, said differently, you are a happy person is because there is no such thing as happiness. Jefferson and Franklin’s natural right is directed toward something that doesn’t exist and as such has been a bedrock of continual confusion.
How can there be no happiness? You might say it’s like saying there is no love (at least we know that love and happiness don’t necessarily cohabitate). No, love is real, however I feel the word happiness is a misdirected term. I had an epiphany some time back when I realized that what we call happiness is really the absence of fear.
Fear is the single most driving emotion we possess, and for good reason. It is the primitive emotion for survival. I don’t know if prehistoric men sat around thinking about whether they were happy or not, but I can be damned sure they knew how to be scared, or driven by the panic of starvation. I can also assume that at those times when their needs were met they probably felt pretty good, but those times were not happiness, rather they were the absence of fear.
Today we find fear everywhere, not just in day to day, meat and potatoes survival. Fear is a tool of our economic and political systems. A majority of commercials and news stories in some way merchandise in fear. Crime, germs, investments, child protection, education, jobs, health, beauty, age, mechanical safety, food, weather, corruption, sex, or anybody who isn’t you. Any one of us could write a list as tall as ourselves. On a day or week or month when you shed yourself of most fear how do you think you would answer the question: are you happy?
If Jefferson had stated in our Declaration of Independence that our unalienable rights were to life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom from fear then maybe as some politicians place a gun to the nation’s head threatening to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way, more of us would have a better understanding of who is on the side of the nation’s people and who isn’t.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Consensus Trap
There are over 16 months till the next U.S. Presidential contest and it has already invited itself into the home by television, magazines, internet, radio, telephone, and conversation. Paid anti-Obama TV commercials are airing frequently. It feels like it won’t be long before they’re competing with pharmaceuticals for gross intrusion. Like a warm week in February, I can’t help wondering if this is somehow different than last time, is the hot summer starting early or not?
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
One reoccurring theme is an Obama vulnerability with so-called Progressives (a.k.a. Liberals or “his base”) due to his presumed failure to nail down their positions. That this should be a concern is beyond laughable to the far-right Conservative end of the spectrum, considering they’ve pinned Obama as a President way left of Mother Teresa, burying us with Socialistic edicts. Still, the dissatisfaction of Obama by the counter left seems to have legs. The Obama team, by their proactive protestations to the contrary, appears to be fearful that these legs may be walking away.
That any of this were the basis of a Shakespearian play we might need to be deep into the second act before it became apparent whether we were watching a tragedy or a comedy. I’m thinking comedy at this point. I mean, the characters won’t die in the end, in fact most will probably leave the story richer than when they started…probably whistling. An irony is that the active ends of the political spectrum are both likely to fall behind their candidate and, of course, vote, which makes concern about their support as useless as a father’s worry about the puppy he’s bringing home to his kids. The real story is in the middle.
Obama has reason for concern, but it isn’t about his failure to deliver on a Liberal agenda. A reading of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s political opus, provides a clear transom into Obama’s real challenge to succeed the Hope candidate. I believe it is entirely possible that this treatise on his own political personality was gift to those who seek to remove him from office. The book makes the “ideal” of consensus a virtually goal, well surpassing more picayune objectives such as health care or campaign finance reforms. Bring everyone together, he essentially proclaims, and the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make for good leadership and it is no formula for re-election.
Franklin D. Roosevelt won election by a large majority in 1937 but not because he had turned the economy around or seduced the opposition. Unemployment was still at 15% (higher if you factor out temporary government employment), equity markets stagnant, financial systems unworkable, deflation unabated, and the military in disarray. He was challenged by business and large conservative coalitions from both parties. What he did offer was strength in leadership which provided a sense of predictability to the general population. History shows both his New Deals were actually shotgun approaches to the economy, with broad uncertain bills, spending cuts, eclectic agencies, and complicated regulations, many thrown out by the courts or not bearing fruit for decades. Still, all most saw was his willingness to pull the trigger. He won the I care about you contest.
Obama was positioned for a similar outcome but instead chose a tactic of Solomon, to lead his flock by the power of his reason and personality. The Republican/Conservatives sized him up quickly as a lightweight and blindsided both him and his Congress with effective stonewalling and nastiness. It was Jimmy Carter all over again. Obama’s accomplishments to date, although notable, have not engendered the necessary I care about you mystique. He could have done it with health care. If the nation’s citizens had awakened to a world where they would never again be alone and at constant risk in obtaining health care Obama would have been politically indestructible. His inability to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire combined with reluctance to cut Federal expenditures has left him looking only political.
With only 16 months left it will be difficult for Obama to remake himself, especially with a Republican House. A noticeable drop in unemployment, an increase in real wages, or maybe a meaningful pullout from the Middle East might help. However, I think with the Misery Index staying close to that facing Carter in 1980 Obama’s best hope might come from the Republicans. If they field a Bachmann, a Newt, a Sarah, or even a Pawlenty, Obama could do well. However, all things being equal, if they go moderate and nominate someone like Huntsman (and Jon has not fathered any bastard children by his former Au Pair), well then…Obama is toast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
