But what do we agree on?

Yesterday, Ann at Mystery Of Iniquity, who introduced me to the confusing abundance of Word World Blogos, posted a snippet from this piece of heartfelt polemic from The Daily Cos. Apart from heartfelt polemic being in itself bracing, it started me thinking about two issues, writ large within the United States, but with a message for all of us (I live in the UK). These are things which I and thousands of better informed bloggers have touched on before, but these things keep coming up, and cannot conveniently be consigned to the completed tasks tray or the trash.

If our elected representatives are beholden to special interest groups, then democracy ceases to exist. If you require large sums of money to get elected, and accept more money to vote according to the interests of your paymasters, we are simply using the word "democracy" because it sounds nicer than "plutocracy". For someone who would label themselves Democrat to behave in this way would seem to qualify for a lifetime hypocrisy award. And one of the things that most angers Hunter is that these people seem completely oblivious to their indefensible position.

In a BBC radio series on White Collar Crime, a British member of parliament, Jonathan Aitken, was interviewed about his state of mind while he was commiting the fraud of which he was subsequently convicted. He said that he came to believe that he could "walk on water", that his actions were somehow above normal standards of judgment.

So, do we agree that our elected representatives behave in this way and, if so, do we think they should? If not, what should be done about it?

This same Daily Cos piece inevitably got me thinking about the on-going and unseemly wrangle about US health care reform. To this end, it would seem to me that no proposal whichfails to directly address a means of preventing millions of one's fellow citizens from being mmore at risk of illness or death by virtue of their income, should be worthy of any consideration at all. All this prevarication and ideological posturing exposes the American nation to disrepute, and dishonours the fine traditions of those who established it. After World War II, Europe was enormously helped by the generosity and enlightened self-interest of The Marshall Plan, aiming to avoid a recurrence of a nation sliding into fascism fueled by economic collapse as Germany had done. Something of that spirit is alive in the G20's reaction to the current recession. Can't the American government and people exercise similar humanity and common sense within their own borders? Do we think the costs of health care are too high? Are we content that people who cannot possibly afford those costs will die? If not, what is to be done about it?

another thing I heard yesterday was that the Greenland ice cap is melting twice as fast as previously thought. Forgetting for now why this is so, should we just accept that it is irreversible, or do we owe it to our children or grand children to at least try and do something about it? Whatever the causes of climate change may be, hurling vast amounts of polutants into the atmosphere is not going to help, and poluting our atmosphere has to be a bad idea in principal. Surely, even a Creationist would agree that the closer we can get this planet to God's original design, the better for mankind. there is no "Thou shalt belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into my atmosphere" commandment of which I'm aware. So, if we have choices, perhaps we should exercise them. Already their are technology consultants beginning to persuade the major energy companies that there is money to be made from renewables. Why spend billions of dollars drilling holes, poluting the oceans and atmosphere, and killing wild life, when there might be renewable =inexhaustible alternatives with less environmental clean up to do, and a much better public relations profile at the end of it? I'm guessing that if the fossil fuel industries had put the money into developing alternatives which they've spent on trying to discredit them, we might already be further along the road to a cleaner and more pleasant planet.

And lastly, to return to a current obsession of mine, is it really beyond our wit to stop producing stuff which nobody needs, paid for by unsustainable plastic debt, when we could be generating jobs, yes even (shock horror) labour intensive jobs, which actually do something useful?

If we really think that the extra car or TV is really more important than someone else's clean water supply, we shouldn't be surprised when they come to get us. Is our economy run on false assumptions? If so, what's to be done about it? An achievable future depends on what we can agree on. Sustained and polarised disagreement can achieve nothing but enmity and a sense of self-righteousness.

And, as a postscript, a quote from Sungold because, in the context of what I'm saying, it makes me feel better.
“I still don’t know what will come next, but this I do know. Freedom is better than oppression. Loving is better than refusing to risk one’s heart. Commitments to principles and people trump opportunism any day. And if we don’t embrace change and vulnerability, we might as well give ourselves up for dead. We might just as well erect our own personal Walls.”

Reason not to be cheerful

We all have different ways of coping with life, and we naturally choose those which fit our temperament. I like to take the hopeful view most of the time. Not because I know the best will always happen, but because it suits me better to act as if it will, while knowing it may not.

However, brain chemistry being what it is, there are days when I wake up feeling slightly less optimistic. On days like those, I should sensor my reading a little. I should not, for example read This article

or This article.

Now I know about politics being the art of the possible, and that we're all supposed to be pragmatic realists, but there are limits.

If Senator Franken's amendment is about to be dumped or diluted, are we really saying that a corporation's profit trumps someone's human rights? If we are saying this, how are we justifying it?

In terms of health care policy, are we really saying that it is in any sense OK to countenance the avoidable death of fellow human beings in the midst of conspicuous affluence? How are we justifying this?

To me, this is simply to defend the indefensible.

As for how to proceed with necessary reform, my belief in "gradualism" as the right approach was brought up short the other day when listening to a BBC program on "Scotland's Black History#". A black abolitionist spoke in Glasgow in support of the campaign to abolish slavery in the United States. The motion was that slavery should be abolished "as soon as possible", and the guest speaker announced his opposition to the motion to the consternation of the meeting. He explained that sin could not be walked away from by degrees. If it were sin, it should be renounced completely and at once. I am not myself a Christian, but his position makes a lot of sense to me. And for many of the protagonists in the current debates, his words should surely speak loudly, since they profess themselves to be Christians.

Cam we imagine Christ entering the Temple and, confronted by the money changers,saying, "Now listen guys, I know there are cost issues here for you, but I wonder if we can't sit down and discuss the medium to long term possibility of your vacating these precincts"?

I think not. Any society worth its salt has to have some clear sticking points.

Finally, I would ask the question can political systems which have allowed the power of money in a few hands to over-ride the common humanity of the electorate, any longer call themselves democracies? This is plutocracy isn't it, rendered respectable by elections giving the people choices between 2 versions of the same thing.

If someone needs access to vast amounts of money to get elected to high public office, there's the end of democracy right there.

I have cheered up since I had these thoughts, but the questions remain.