Genocide is a part of human history. It has been committed by every major religion and ethnicity, at times within the same group. According to ancient sources, the Jews were both perpetuators and victims of genocide.[1] The ancient Greeks often destroyed cities that they defeated with everyone in them.[2] Enslavement and extermination of native Africans and Americans started with colonialism and continued into the 19th Century. We still are coming to grips with the numerous European genocides of the 20th century, while slaughters based on ethnicity and political oppression continue in our own day in places like Myanmar and Syria.

What we discussed briefly in our group, and will continue to consider, is why people commit atrocities toward each other. What is it in the minds of human beings (maybe even me and some of you?) that creates a division between us and the “other” to the extent that we begin to believe that “they” — people who are different in ethnicity or view — are not quite human? Why do some people (including some of us?) see others as threats and sources of such discomfort that they want them altogether extinguished? Are we all capable of being inspired to work ourselves into a frenzy of hatred and bigotry?

Hannah Arendt, in her book describing the 1961 trial of Adolph Eichmann,[3] commented on “his inability to think...from the standpoint of someone else.” Her subtitle implies that evil is more common than we realize; perhaps everyone is capable of it. But why do human beings (including me and you?) often focus only on our differences rather than what we have in common, resulting in an inability or unwillingness to experience the humanity of others? Why do people (you and me at times?) judge others as evil because they have different views, or different backgrounds, or different ethnic characteristics? Is there a slippery slope from condemning the views or ethnicity of others to considering them and their lives invalid? Are we more likely to hold such views if they are believed by those around us?

We might think that in our modern democratic political settings we never would threaten the lives of those who represent views different from our own, yet that is happening in many nations that recently were considered democracies, such as Russia, Turkey and the Philippines. Do we think that the people of those nations are unlike us? In the US we label ethnic groups which seek asylum an invasion, even though most of our ancestors were at one time asylum seekers. Murder often has been committed in the US based on hatred toward those who some consider less than human: the slaughter of native tribes, lynchings in the South, and the recent murder in Charlottesville, Virginia.

People (including us?) seek to simplify their understanding of others in a complex world. This leads to dividing others into good and evil, and once evil they and their lives don’t really matter. When people (anyone?) consider others to be not quite human the next step is wanting to be rid of them. Our tribal nature can cause us to no longer see others as people like ourselves but only as obstacles in our paths.

How can we move past this inveterate tribalism? Can we extend our concept of our tribe to include those we once excluded, as has been done when nations were forged out of smaller states? Can we create larger alliances by acknowledging the validity of others, identifying common priorities, and agreeing on how best to move forward?

Moving past tribalism to identify a common path will be the basis of our discussions in the New Year. We will focus on areas where we have struggled to progress, such as immigration, education, economics, the environment, prison reform, and health care. We will determine our goals in these areas based on the democratic principle of universal respect, and how implementing them would look in the real world. Democracy only has succeeded — and will succeed — when we focus on what unites us rather than on that which divides us.

Our November 12, 2018, topic was Truth and Democracy.
We opened our discussion by having group members discuss their ideas about what is essential to democracy:
​

1. People participate in their own government. Free speech is allowed without consequences, except where it endangers others.
2. Government is essentially by the people and can be changed by the people. Voting is a basic right.
3. People have open communication with their government representatives about their complaints and concerns.
4. Democracy requires an educated population of individuals who can think for themselves, and who can understand and act on its principles.
5. Everyone has basic minimal human rights that cannot be taken away. Minorities are protected from domination by the majority. 
   
   

We discussed an article, “Democracy and its Discontents,” about how democracy is not self-sustaining, but must be actively maintained by those who support it. Although many take it for granted, democracy requires continual participation from its citizens. It requires an awareness of how leaders may lead us away from true democratic principles by pursuing only the interests of those who support or agree with them, rather than a dedication to the “general welfare” as stated by the Constitution. Maintaining democracy requires an understanding that genuine self-interest means laws and policies that guarantee the rights of everyone, rather than just a few. In a real democracy the government assures that the rights all are protected. 
 
The most essential truth in a democratic society is that everyone is considered an equally valid human being and all have “inalienable rights.” Moving toward greater equality and respect for everyone is democracy’s most basic principle; where “the people” are the ultimate authority rather than any person or party. But people — and their representatives — always will have different views about how best to move toward the realization of this principle. Thus we need an ongoing respectful discussion toward a common understanding of how it is to be achieved.
 
Authoritarian governments perpetuate the myths that some people are superior to others to maintain their authority. They promote views that serve their narrow purposes, especially about the infallibility of their leaders and their decisions. Many modern countries that claim to be democratic have moved away from a commitment to equality, even though their constitutions guarantee democracy. Some nations that have had revolutions — and once moved toward democracy — now have lost much of their democratic impulse and are dominated by one political, economic or ethnic group at the expense of others, resulting in a diminishment of equal rights.
 
A commitment to the essential truth of democracy — that all human beings are of equal value — is needed to determine the form that the government takes. One element is that people are free to question the views expressed by their leaders. Revolutions often result when autocratic governments suppress free expression.
 
The principle of equality is difficult to achieve in practice. No nation is totally democratic — there is no perfect “government by the people” — but as nations progress toward greater democracy they move closer to making equality a lived reality. The United States, according to Abraham Lincoln, was founded on “the proposition that all men are created equal,” but initially only extended equal rights to white men, then eventually to men of color, then women, which took 130 years.
 
Equal opportunity is essential so that all have a chance to develop their skills and talents. In our day many still lack opportunities for education, find it difficult to vote, and do not receive equal justice based on race or background. We have come a long way but still have far to go toward realizing the democratic vision.
 
Beginning in January, 2019, we will explore how the ideals of democracy look when they guide our governments and lives in many essential areas. The topics of future discussions and newsletters will include immigration, international relations, economics, globalism, human rights, nationalism, racism, trade, economics, free speech, freedom of the press, criminal justice reform, social benefits, the safety net, effective leadership, the environment, the justice system, and others relevant topics. We will clarify specific actions needed to maintain democracy in these areas in light of its diminishment around the world — and its threats within the US — as we approach the 2020 presidential elections. 
 
Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to receive each new newsletter when posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
​
The book The Future of Democracy can be ordered wherever books are sold.
​
Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.

Excerpt from Steve’s forthcoming book, Truth or Consequences: Truth as a Guide to Personal and Political Action in a Age of Polarization

The best leaders unite people in working together toward a common vision. Divisive leaders invoke a vision that appeals only to a part of the population, while discrediting others to feed their personal ambition.
 
There has been polarity in politics since it began. Polarity often is encouraged by leaders for their own gain as they promote strife among the people they claim to serve. If we make enemies among ourselves then we have a problem largely of our own making. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese — among others — all had their internal conflicts and intrigues.
 
The part of our personalities that trusts others seeks to work with them toward common goals, but the part that distrusts others creates divisions. The most dangerous leaders take advantage of divisiveness to become more firmly entrenched at the expense of others. Their followers fail to recognize that the politicians they back work against their own best interests and those of their society. They close their eyes as they become enablers of leaders who also ultimately fail to serve them.
 
At the height of the Athenian democracy, in the 5th century BCE, Alcibiades, one of the most skillful politicians of his time, sowed discord among the citizens of both Athens and its enemy Sparta by switching allegiances as it suited his career. He worked against those who sought peace by fomenting a war he hoped would make him a hero. He opposed the forces of democracy to further his career and was largely responsible for the end of Athens’ reign.
 
Despite persecution of those who challenged it, the Roman Republic was founded on the principle of libertas, or freedom for its citizens. They voted for its leaders, and the state took responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. In the first century BCE, Julius Caesar, after leading successful campaigns in Gaul and Britain, went to war with the Roman Senate upon his return.  Peaceful politics gave way to increasing brutality as Caesar became a dictator following that civil war.
 
In more recent memory, Stalin and Hitler rallied their followers in a non-ending effort to defeat imagined internal enemies of the state. Their dictatorships had origins in popular movements that were intended to restore economic status to the average citizen, but in the end they created a nightmare for all.
 
Each of the above is an example of how a divisive leader can turn one part of a population against another. But leaders cannot run a country without the help of their enablers. They must have unquestioning followers who support them and their mission, and who are willing to buy into the mindset that for some people to win, others must lose.
 
In our day, many countries have been founded on the unifying principle of democracy — or government by the people — as stated by their constitutions. But democracy is threatened everywhere because many leaders have been able to win over a large part of the population that believes itself neglected. These “populist” leaders promise that the greatness of their nation and the economic status of their followers will be restored. Meanwhile their supporters become gradually more willing to compromise the equality that real democracy represents. This type of populism looks mainly backwards as it promises to restore a nostalgic vision. Some followers long for the resurrection of technologies that are becoming obsolete, whereas the establishment of new technologies — with training in those areas — actually is what is needed to ensure their future.
 
For our civilization — and the lives of people — to progress we must be bold enough to create and move toward a vision that serves everyone. We must rebuild the infrastructure that allows our societies to function. Leaders who care about their nations — rather than only about ensuring their own power — lead us out of the wilderness to a new and more fulfilling future rather than continuing us on a failed route. Effective leaders draw on courage to move beyond the past to an inspirational vision. Leaders who promote division are dangerous to everyone, including their followers.
 
People often vote for politicians and parties based on promises that are not kept. But their most ardent followers back them regardless of whether their policies help or hurt them. To their detriment, these followers allow themselves to be fooled by a continuing repetition of how the “others” — often their fellow citizens — really are not valid human beings because they stand in the way of their economic success.
                                                                                                                          
Among countries that consider themselves democratic, the United States was the first to be founded on a vision of revolutionary leaders who sought to overthrow what they considered to be tyranny. Its founders were able to work together and stay focused because of the threat at their door. But the hardest part was clarifying how the young country was to conduct itself once that threat was overcome.  When the Articles of Confederation did not work to create a viable nation, the founders reconvened to forge a more forward looking Constitution.
 
That Constitution, written nine years after the revolution, needed four months of negotiation and numerous revisions. It was a compromise that provided a guideline for how to maintain a democratic vision. But ever since all agreed on George Washington as the country’s first President in 1789, unity has been elusive. During the administration of Washington, his previous allies regressed into partisan feuding. They turned the instinct to identify and defeat an enemy against each other. The disunity made former friends into foes. Adams and Jefferson feuded while Hamilton and Burr dueled. The legacy of combat between politicians and political parties that began with the US founders continues to this day.
 
In politics we are more easily united by what we don’t want then what we do want. Clarifying a direction for the young American democracy via its Constitution was the political miracle of its time. Its legacy of equality still is with us. Yet in everyday politics we often fail to honor this mandate. When people believe that not only are their ideas superior, but that they also are, it creates an unbridgeable gap. The truth is that none of us are superior, as stated in our US founding documents. Yet politicians often contradict that principle in their daily attitudes and actions.
 
There is a difference between confronting ideas that we think are incorrect and attacking the individuals who state those ideas. Our politics often are dysfunctional because many try to prove that not only their ideas — but they themselves — are superior to others. But by attacking others personally we impede our ability to move toward mutual solutions. Of course we must be prepared for being attacked and respond as needed, but continual fear of an attack prevents us from seeing the humanity of those with whom we interact.
 
Everyone believes in their individual truths that they have developed over their lifetime. We all seek validation for who we are, so validating others is needed before we can focus on solutions. Assuming the worst about others distorts our responses and moves us further from our larger goal of solutions that work. A glimpse at the dysfunction of legislative bodies everywhere makes that clear.
 
We have two possible choices in the function of our government — promoting equality or inequality. For a government to truly serve its people, the truth of human equality must guide it. We must learn from our history — particularly where we have denied honoring human rights. But regardless of the past, we can move forward by creating agreements based on that common vision of equality that we carefully monitor to verify that all are doing their part.
 
A major issue for many of us is how to know who or what to believe among the many competing views that are presented by our politicians and media. For some of us, the first thing we do in the morning — and the last thing at night — is to check our favorite news source to help us interpret the seemingly non-ending events of our world. We are information dependent on our televisions, radios, computers, newspapers and increasingly on our personal devices, often clinging to the simplest explanation of events to aid our understanding.
 
But if democracy is to survive we cannot simply believe the scenarios provided by the media, a political party, or a book, including this one. To make democracy work we must consider numerous sources of information, as well as our own observations, and come to our conclusions based on a balanced view of the evidence. But this rarely is done as we become more partisan and less willing to consider that there may be a larger truth beyond our own views.
 
Yet there are some guidelines that we can follow that can move us closer to the truth. As individuals in a democracy we must seek many perspectives before we settle on our own. Media that supports democracy presents many views rather than telling users how to think. Then we must be open to the possibility of continually revising our conclusions as new information arrives. We also must be wary of politicians and media outlets that encourage us to vilify others as has been done — and still is done — by our most dangerous leaders and media pundits.
 
There is much talk today in our society about what news is real and what is not. Real news reporting encourages us to examine many sides of every issue, but a network cannot be trusted that consistently comes out on the side of one person or party and wants to do our thinking for us rather than encouraging us to come to our own conclusions. Such sources fly in the face of the spirit of democracy. But real news is not confined to any one source. We must continually keep our minds open as we evaluate the value of the input we receive.
 
Regardless of whether a government is democratically elected or dictatorial, it requires the support of its people to survive. We are more comfortable staying with what we always have done and believed even if it fails to meet our needs. We often believe that our own advancement hinges on the downfall of others, which remains the message of backward looking leaders and media sources that take advantage of our insecurities. The consequence is that we become stuck in unworkable solutions that leave us unable to successfully meet the challenges of the present and future.
 
Democratic government is threatened when leaders pursue personal vendettas rather than patriotic priorities. This moves us closer to autocracy. Such leaders play one part of the population against others which allows them to tighten their grip. Enablers and blind followers of autocrats already have cast their die and will go down or up with the leader they have adopted. Enablers exist in a democracy because they lack belief or training in its most basic principle, which is universal respect.
 
When I become aware of the truth that my welfare is tied to that of every other human being, it changes my views and actions. This is the most fundamental democratic idea. When those who live in democracies understand this principle it becomes reflected in their interactions and their votes. The consequence is a world view and actions that works for the benefit of all. Real patriotism is allegiance to the underlying principles of one’s nation, not to one person or party.
 
History shows that civilizations self-implode when they are mired in the past and unable to give up their divisions. We move forward only when willing to collaborate toward the continuous progress of all in our society. We are rooted in the past, but what has brought us success is an ability to evolve to meet the new challenges that confront us. We can fight among ourselves for a share of the future, or work together to guarantee a better future for all who are willing to contribute. That choice always is before us.
 
In today’s world there are two main types of governments. There are those that only are democratic in name; they have lost the momentum of their revolutions and have become autocratic. They suppress internal pressure by their citizens; their numbers are increasing in our day. Then there are those governments that still maintain their democracy for the most part, and respond to internal pressure from their citizens.
 
How do we overcome our polarities to make democratic societies more functional? That must start with a respectful conversation between those with opposing views. The questions that can be discussed are: (1) What are the most basic principles for those who believe in democracy?
(2) What would following those principles look like? (3) How do we turn this vision into action?  That will keep us busy for a while, but hopefully, when an agreement is reached, we will continue on the challenging path of working together toward the realization of the vision we establish.

​On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law that had been passed by the US Congress the previous day. This new law provides neither tax cuts nor jobs in the long term for the vast majority of Americans. Sponsors claim that this is a tax “reform” bill, but it instead is likely to lead to another major economic downturn. You don’t need to be an economist to be alarmed by this tax law. It moves our country further from democracy and clearly in the direction of oligarchy, or rule by the few. 

Despite the claims of its sponsors, this new tax law will not provide economic growth.[1] Its provisions instead are likely to lead to economic decline. It is similar to tax cuts in the 1980s and early 2000s that were marketed as great boosts to the economy. The 1980s cuts led to a need for extensive borrowing by the government, which slowed the economy.[2] The 2007 Great Recession brought us close to depression before we went into deep debt to reverse it, and it negatively affected those across a wide range of incomes and industries. This tax law threatens your financial well-being and that of your family, as well your livelihood and retirement for years to come, regardless of your income bracket.

It provides “tax relief” almost entirely to those at the top of the income scale.[3] Suddenly, legislators who claim to be “fiscal conservatives” are willing to explode our already huge national debt with tax cuts for themselves and those who provide millions of dollars to their campaigns. This essentially is a transfer of funds to the most wealthy from everyone else.

Tax rates will be cut the most for the highest income Americans, while providing minimal or no relief for those earning up to $200,000, with some of their tax rates going up. The richest one percent will have their incomes increased by 2.2%.[4] This tax law will reduce corporate taxes permanently from 35 to 21 percent and eliminate the tax on inheritances except for the very few largest estates. In 2027, the benefits for low and middle income individuals disappear, while the benefits for the top one percent will remain.[5]

Sponsors claim that these cuts are needed to rescue a stagnating economy. The US economy actually is doing well, although many who suffered during the Great Recession and who voted for economic relief in the last election still have not recovered.[6] This “tax reform” law does nothing to address their needs; instead it is likely to make their situation worse. It provides 100% deductions to companies for automation and no provision for those who will be displaced.[7] This will continue the deterioration of the job picture for blue-collar workers. Congress instead should promote incentives for companies that really create jobs and train workers to function in the new economy. Providing funds to improve our deteriorating infrastructure — including bridges and roads — would result in jobs and increased wages to those whose incomes have stagnated.

The new tax law limits deductions of state and local property taxes, which will put tremendous pressure on state budgets, including education and health care expenses. It limits deductions for charitable giving, which will threaten the existence of organizations that survive by donations.

The individual mandate to buy health insurance also will be eliminated under the guise of individual rights, which will raise rates for those who do buy insurance. This is like claiming that drivers should not be required to purchase auto insurance because they consider themselves unlikely candidates for an accident.

Currently the US has a $20 trillion dollar national debt that has more than doubled over the past ten years. That amounts to over $60,000 per person and is steadily increasing. The interest on this debt must be paid on time or the government will shut down. 6% of our tax dollars went to the interest alone on the national debt in 2016.[8] In every major downturn the debt has gone up precipitously due to lower tax revenues. Larger government debt ultimately requires higher payments from taxpayers — that is, you and me.

Who owns this debt? Mainly bankers, wealthy individuals, and some foreign governments. So tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans increase the national debt and shift the burden from higher to lower income taxpayers.

History shows that huge tax cuts for the wealthiest never have worked to stimulate the economy for long. Instead, they have forced middle and lower class families to pay a larger share of the federal budget. Tax cuts will not create jobs because corporations already are sitting on billions of dollars that they do not use for this purpose. These “job creators” will expand hiring only when there is an increasing demand for their goods and services. This comes from expanding the purchasing power of the bulk of the population.

One of the main parallels between the Great Depression that started in 1929 and the Great Recession that began in 2007 was widening income inequality.[9] The tax law will expand inequality to new levels. Tax savings by corporations go mainly to their investors, who then look for a return on their increased income. And what will the wealthiest Americans do with their windfall? There is a limit to how much one can spend, so they will “invest” it, which means they will increase the amount of money available for loans, usually via real estate or by purchasing stocks or bonds. Too much money pumped into the economy creates a flood of easy credit and over-speculation. People who borrow will fall further behind. Inflation will increase, as it always does when there are excess amounts of money available. This inevitably leads to a downturn.

It also will endanger Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. According to the non-partisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, it will add 1.4 trillion dollars to the national debt. This will allow the same politicians who champion tax cuts to claim that we no longer can afford these programs. Some already have declared this position. According to Florida Senator Marco Rubio: “The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries.” House Speaker Paul Ryan also is bragging about his plan to cut back on what he calls “entitlements.” As these benefits are cut, it further increases the income gap.
 
By contrast, in the 1990s we raised taxes in this country. The annual deficit and national debt were reduced. The economy improved after years of stagnation because we actually could pay our bills.

Taxes are our investment in our present and future — in roads, bridges, education, police and military services, disaster relief, health insurance, programs for the elderly and disabled, and everything else we need to keep our economy and nation functioning. But there is reluctance, by many, to contribute their fair share of our expenses. Imagine the wage earners in your family refusing to share earnings with other family members. Your family’s finances would collapse, just as this tax law is likely to cause our economy to collapse. As the tax burden falls increasingly on those who can least afford it, inequality increases. This will deepen the widening income gap to extreme levels, leading us closer to a government that is run by and for the most wealthy.

At many points in history, bubbles have been created — and then have burst — based on an increasing economic divide between the few and the many. When the great bulk of economic power rests in the hands of a limited number of players, the welfare of the entire population becomes compromised. Currently the richest one percent of families controls a record-high 38% of the country’s wealth, according to a recent Federal Reserve report.[10] A great gap between the wealthiest and the rest reduces economic flow and sinks the economy for those at all income levels.

There are two types of citizens in democracies: those who simply hope that their elected officials will work for them, and those who are willing to take action to ensure that their government works in their favor. This is one of those times when maintaining our democracy hinges on those of us who are willing to act. If you liked the last recession, you will love the crash that our Congress and President are about to bring down on us.

Hopefully you want to maintain our democracy and not see it deteriorate because of a deepening divide between lower-to-middle income Americans and the wealthiest. This is the unfortunate pattern that is happening in many countries around the world that have tried democracy.

Do we really learn from history? We soon will find out.


Here’s what you can do:

1. Contact your legislators immediately in every state and let them know that if they voted for this law they will lose the support of their voters. The message is simple: “If you voted for the tax reform bill, I will not vote for you in the next election. You need to vote to rescind it.”
2. Support politicians who vow to rescind this law and replace it with legislation that will stimulate our economy rather than destroy it, such as infrastructure rebuilding. Unless the law is rescinded, there will be no money for the programs that are needed to strengthen the economic picture for the vast majority of Americans. The excuse will be that we cannot increase the deficit, which this tax scam does by $1.4 trillion. 

To locate the contact information for your federal legislators go to:
​

• For Senators: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
• For Representatives: https://www.house.gov/representatives

Steve Zolno is the author of The Future of Democracy, published by Regent Press. He can be reached at thefutureofdemocracy.net.

[1] “Seven Take-Aways From The Senate’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act,” Tax Policy Center, December 5, 2017.
[2] Day of Reckoning, by Benjamin Friedman, Page 234.
[3] “How the GOP tax plan took a u-turn on the middle class,” Washington Post, December 10, 2017.
[4] “Winners and Losers of the Senate Tax Bill,” Toni Nitti, Forbes, December 2, 2017.
[5] “Despite Many Changes, the Senate’s Tax Cut Still Mostly Benefits Business and High-Income Households,” Tax Policy Center, December 5, 2017.
[6] “The Never-Ending Foreclosure” in The Atlantic by Alana Semuels, December 1, 2017.
[7] “Senate Republican have put themselves under the gun to vote on a tax bill this week,” CNN Money, November 30, 2017
[8] “Policy Basics: Where do our tax dollars go?” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, October 27, 2017.
[9] “Income Inequality,” by the Associated Press, August 19, 2016.
[10] “The top one percent of Americans now control 38% of the wealth,” CNBC.com, September 27, 2017.

On November 13, 2017, we began to work on our Mandate for Sustaining Democracy. We intend to create a plan of action for how to sustain democracy in all areas in which people function, including economics, education, the environment and of course, politics.
 
Our conversation started with a quote from the book The Future of Democracy:

​We discussed the book Misbehaving (2015) by Richard Thaler, a University of Chicago Economist who just won the Nobel Prize. Thaler’s view is similar to that of Daniel Kahneman, the author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, that there are two sides to the human personality: (1) that which reacts automatically and (2) that which thinks things through, although Thaler approaches issues from an economist’s perspective. According to Thaler, “The core economic theory is that people choose by optimizing. Of all the goods and services a family could buy, the family chooses the best one that it can afford.” In other words, classic economic theory is based on the assumption that consumers are rational, or at least that the behaviors of individuals balance out, so that the results are prices and markets that are optimal and realistic.

Our October 16, 2017, topic was Overcoming the Economic Divide.

We reviewed a recent article from CNN Money (9/27/17) which states that we in the US are at a level of record inequality that continues to deepen: “The richest 1% of families controlled a record-high 38.6% of the country's wealth in 2016….That's nearly twice as much as the bottom 90%, which has seen its slice of the pie continue to shrink.”

We continued our discussion with a recent book that traces the spending habits of Americans on the lower end of the economic scale: Financial Diaries: How American Families Cope in a World of Uncertainty (2017) provides insight into the economic slide that has affected millions of families. The book states that:

​A paper from the Harvard Business Review entitled “Why Germany Still Has So Many Middle-Class Manufacturing Jobs” (May 2, 2017) emphasized that about half of the major mid-sized world-market manufacturing leading companies are German. The country emphasizes firms that are unmatched in their field because of the excellence of their products and the intense training provided to their workers who do well financially, and who also do not have to worry about college and healthcare costs because of state-sponsored programs. They have relatively low taxes, but many more people are able to contribute a larger portion because of excellent pay. Also, they focus on the anticipated needs of the world market, often meeting these needs despite the relatively poor natural resources of the country.
 
In the article “Americans Who Need Jobs Aren’t Going Where the Jobs are (May 27, 2017),” Yahoo Finance points out that in our growing economy, many of the best jobs are going unfulfilled in parts of the country (the South and West) while many workers remain stuck in areas that  lack jobs (the Northeast and Midwest).
 
In his blog of September 1, 2017, Jared Bernstein pointed out that the “jobs report comes in slightly weaker than expected, but the real problem is slow wage growth.”
 
We discussed the paper “Towards Economic Equality: A Seven Point Program to Ensure a Better Future for Us All,” by the Wellstone Democratic Club Economic Justice Committee. Its main points:

1. Support the most vulnerable people first.
2. Revise our taxing and spending priorities.
3. Rebuild a high-employment and high-wage economy.
4. Build sustainable infrastructure to create jobs and invest in the future.
5. Re-regulate and stabilize the financial and mortgage markets.
6. Give greater economic power over our common resources to the people.
7. Bring true democracy to the political process.

As we have pointed out in this discussion and others, economic divisions have negative effects on those at all levels of society. When the majority of people no longer can pay their bills, the economy weakens and we slip into recession or worse.

How To Build an Economy That Works for Everyone

1. Invest in training and education for those who need it to support the economy of the future.
2. Use the tax system to work toward a vision of prosperity that helps everyone by investing in a strong base of well-trained workers.
3. Provide a living wage so that those at the lower end of the economic scale can participate and contribute to the economic flow that helps everyone.
4. Take the burden of health care off of the working class so that they can contribute to the general economy without fear of having everything they earn being absorbed by medical bills.
5. Rebuild our badly deteriorated infrastructure by supporting companies that create job opportunities in areas where manufacturing has deteriorated.

 
On November 13, we will put together our research and discussions of the last year into comprehensive recommendations for rebuilding our society in a way that brings the social and economic benefits of democracy to those at all levels. Contact Steve for the location if you want to attend.

Our September 11, 2017, topic was Overcoming Extremism.

​We discussed writings by a number of writers on the subject of extremism. Arno Michaelis is the author of My Life after Hate ​(2012). He was the leader of a White Supremacist group and metal band that received considerable notoriety. He discusses how he and friends continually looked for fights while in a drunken racist stupor: 

​Eventually, after the birth of his daughter and compassionate treatment by members of minorities he once despised, he turned his attitude and life around. He now frequently appears on talk shows where he expounds on how the racist ideology he once promoted nearly destroyed his life and the lives of those around him. A quote from near the end of the book is clear about the lessons he learned and wants to share with others: 

We then discussed a recent article in the Washington Post: “The road to hate: For six young men, Charlottesville is only the beginning.” The article confirms the disenfranchisement of those in hate groups. They see the world as conspiring against them and their interests. They are willing to fight (and sometimes die) to defend what they see as a threat by other groups of their rights — and their very being.

Stern believes that the “war on terror” as we have been conducting it is doomed to fail because our attacks on terrorist groups only confirm their view that we represent evil. This also helps their recruiting efforts. Rather, we need to make an effort, as she has, to recognize the reasons that people become extremists:

​The best way to combat extremism is to become models for promoting our values:

Members of hate groups learn to dehumanize those that they become to believe deserve extermination:

​Living in what we call a democracy is no guarantee against the violation of human rights, as we have seen in our own country and many others. From The Future of Democracy:

What do all of the above views have in common?

1. Human beings tend to generalize about themselves and others. We easily can demonize those we consider different from us and blame them for the circumstances of our lives or world. This is the first step toward considering others less than human and deserving of being shunned or even eliminated.
   
   
2. Everyone wants to be heard and considered valid human beings. Those in extremist groups have come to believe that their own value depends on disparaging the value of others. But another way to interact is to affirm the value of each human being — which also lifts our own human value — in the hope that the gap between us can be bridged.
   
   
3. We often emphasize what is wrong in our lives and world, rather than identifying our vision and how to move toward that direction. The vision of democracy is providing for the greatest possible recognition of the value of every human being. We have moved closer to this vision over the last 200+ years but it must continually be discussed and redefined to be an ongoing, living reality.
   
   
4. Our vision of the recognition of the value of each and every human being can be pursued at all levels of human interaction, including the personal, institutional, and political. We don’t need to wait for the world to change to make a dent in extremism. What does make a difference is keeping that vision in mind in our daily actions. This is more easily said than done, but it is more than just a principle or philosophy; it only can come about in everyday practice with others. We always have a choice of engaging — or not — in a war of words with those we consider evil. Physical wars often begin with word wars. The alternative is to engage in constructive dialogue toward a common vision and discuss how best to enact that vision.
   ​​
5. Hatred is a feeling of condemnation that we project onto others who may or may not experience it. Thus when we condemn others we also condemn ourselves. In the words of Nelson Mandela:
   
   “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” (Long Walk to Freedom)
   
   
6. Of course we must respond if we are attacked, and be prepared for that possibility. But dwelling on a war-like vision — rather than a vision of the world we want to live in — makes us more likely to move toward conflict and war.

The focus of our May 15 discussion was Economics and Democracy. We considered the influence of economics on democracy through the ages, with a special emphasis on Milton Friedman of the (University of) Chicago School, versus the modern progressive economics of Robert Reich and others.
 
The cover of our packet had a quote from The Future of Democracy:

​The topic of our April 17 discussion was After the Revolution, with a focus on the long-term success or failure of revolutions around the world, including our own.
 
The cover of our packet had a quote from The Future of Democracy ​about the French Revolution, although it applies to many others since that time:

We focused on the book Our Revolution by Bernie Sanders, as well as Thomas Paine by Craig Nelson, and Creating a Culture of Revolution, by our own Deborah Pearl.

What revolutions have in common is radical change in an established political system. They can, however — as Deborah Pearl points out — be preceded by many years of ferment and discontent. In the case of Russia, there was the gradual organization of revolutionary ideas for 50 years before their revolution took place. Meetings were organized by intellectuals who used pamphlets to convince a growing percent of the population that they did not have to submit to the rule of “Father Czar” although they had become accustomed to suppression as a way of life over generations.

Bernie Sanders, in his book Our Revolution, is not advocating an overthrow of government, but promoting a radical alteration in the economic situation that has left millions of members of the middle class behind. His book covers a wide range of areas that affect the majority of individuals including income and wealth inequality, climate change, trade agreements, wages, campaign finance reform, universal health care, protecting our most vulnerable citizens, and investing in a free education as a tool to move low-income individuals up the economic scale.

​At the beginning of the American Revolution Thomas Paine wrote pamphlets that were widely popular and brought many people to the side of the resurrection, although the population was evenly split between those remaining loyal to Britain and those who advocated overthrowing its rule. “Common Sense” was the first of his popular tracts that ignited a sense of patriotic fervor among colonists: “The cause of America is, in great measure, the cause of all mankind…” According to his biographers, Paine was a passionate individual who lacked the tact and ability to work with others toward a common goal as was Jefferson or Franklin. The enlightenment that inspired our revolution was, to a great extent, an extension of the idea that humans were not bound by the traditions that kept them in their place, but only by the laws of a god who created nature. All are equal under that god.

We discussed how in the aftermath of the American Revolution, the US founders realized that their Articles of Confederation had created a weak system of states with no common purpose or direction. Thus, eleven years later (1787) they saw the need to work together to create a written constitution that claimed that the authority for all laws as “We the People.”

The majority of revolutions since that time have faltered in the long-term — despite written constitutions that guarantee democracy — because of a failure to establish a common direction based on a commitment to the welfare of the vast majority of people. This has included France (until recently), Russia, China, and Turkey, plus many countries in the Middle East and South and Central America. It also includes internal revolutions such as that in the US in the 1960s and movements like Occupy Wall Street.

Our goal is to identify the principles of democracy that allow it to thrive in the long run so that revolutions are not subverted by the return of the oppression they were intended to eliminate.

Our focus of our next meeting will be Economics and Democracy. We will explore what economists tell us about how to make democracy viable and explore the view that there is no such thing as “pure economics.” Despite claims of objectivity all major economists have a political view behind their theories. We will focus on the seminal work of Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, who famously stated: “Government is the problem,” echoed by a US President who claimed to eliminate the excesses of government while turning the US from a creditor to a debtor nation. We will contrast his views with those of Robert Reich in his most recent book, Saving Capitalism, and other influential economists.

Our next meeting will be Monday, May 15 at 7:30. Let us know if you need the location or directions.

Please recommend this newsletter and blog to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to be notified when a new newsletter is posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
​
The Future of Democracy can be ordered wherever books are sold.
​
Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.

We focused on the book Strangers in Their Own Land, by Arlie Hochschild, a Berkeley sociologist who spent years interviewing and getting to know the residents in an area of rural Louisiana. We also included a number of articles about voters in other parts of the US, many of whom have in the past voted for Democratic presidential candidates and then switched their voting patterns.
 
An essential element of Hochschild’s book is what she calls the “deep story” of the residents of the area where she spent time. They believe themselves having worked hard to get ahead for themselves and their families but nevertheless falling behind economically due to government neglect, or programs that allow others who often are less deserving to move ahead of them. They have developed a deep distrust of government and have moved to greater reliance on their local communities and industries for sustenance.
 
Jobs are a key issue in some areas that voted to put Trump in office; across the country in many states voters have become disillusioned that they or their families ever can move ahead financially. They have come to believe that the jobs provided by private industry are the only hope for them to emerge from their financial dilemma. In the rural South and areas that have become mere economic shadows of what they once were, such as Detroit and Youngstown, there is a feeling of abandonment and distrust of government. Many whose incomes have stagnated have moved farther from the American Dream, with no relief in sight. They are primarily economic voters with a desperate hope for restoring what they considered a prosperous way of life. They also have been victims of pollution that local industries often have brought, or a neglected or deteriorating environment from industries that have moved away, resulting in serious health hazards and a lowering of life expectancy.
 
But the well-paying jobs these people are longing for often are rooted in the past and represent unreliable sources of income for the future. Such jobs are based on fossil fuels or coal, which slowly are being replaced with alternatives, or automobile manufacturing and related industries where automation is taking over, so these jobs will continue to be low-paying.
 
Possible Solutions:

1. Our government, which has made huge investments to save banks with a good return when those loans were repaid, must invest in infrastructure and job training in areas such as green energy to allow those who believe themselves economically behind to move confidently toward the future.
2. The dialogue must continue to ensure that our government policies are based on what benefits the greatest number of people. Government often deals with problems, but it needs to be pro-active to help the country move toward a viable vision of sustainable employment. Our government must be seen as having its source in — and emphasis on — the needs of “We the People” rather than being seen as the enemy of the people by so many. When it clearly acts as an ally for Americans who have fallen behind, many will be less focused on blaming the government or others for their predicament.

 
We will continue to meet one Monday each month, depending on what works for the group. Next meeting will be April 17, when the topic will be After the Revolution. The results of many revolutions are a return to the oppressive conditions they were intended to replace: think Russia, France, much of Central and South America, and the 1960s in the US and other countries. Many are calling for a revolution in the US today. We will focus on ideas about how to move forward after revolutions with a discussion of the book Our Revolution, by Bernie Sanders. I have invited my primary editor, Deborah Pearl, Russia expert and author of Creating a Culture of Revolution, to lend us her expertise.
 
Please recommend this newsletter and blog to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the list to be notified when a new newsletter is posted, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
​
The Future of Democracy can be ordered wherever books are sold.
​
Click ↓ Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.