CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 22 October 2012
“Progressives, unlike many of those on the far right, are not willing to let America fail, but instead fight for changes while promoting awareness of the unpleasant truth.”
Ozymandias II: Why Our Nation is Failing
A young explorer from a distant land
embarked upon our shores. "A visage bold
yet peaceful greeted me," said he. "Her hand
held high, she bore a flaming torch that told
of liberty and progress, and a script
evoking justice, and a hopeful word
to wretched peoples, tired and poor and stripped
of dignity in other worlds." And stirred
to dreams and passion by this moment rare,
the visitor advanced beyond the shore,
then suddenly fell back in stark despair:
Before him, like the aftermath of war,
were landscapes scarred with toxins and debris,
and barrenness as far as he could see.
Progressives, unlike many of those on the far right, are not willing to let America fail, but instead fight for changes while promoting awareness of the unpleasant truth. Three remarkable books help us to understand what we need to do.
1. The Measure of a Nation, by Howard Steven Friedman
American "exceptionalism" is the sense that we're better than other countries, and that we don't need to rely on them to solve problems like education and health care. Such isolation breeds delusion. Friedman notes that over 30% of American students rated their math ability at a high level, compared to 10% of Korean students and 6% of Japanese students. But the U.S. ranks significantly below each of them in math.
We ignore the success of public education systems in Finland and Japan, and instead try to turn our schools into profit-making centers. A few well-positioned people will benefit instead of millions of young Americans whose public schools will have lost their funding.
Health care doesn't measure up, either. 25 years ago we ranked 7th in life expectancy. Now we're 38th. We're falling behind other countries in the rate of infant mortality, partly because we have a higher child poverty rate than any OECD country other than Romania. We spend over twice as much as other developed countries on health care, yet we reject their successes as "socialist."
But we lead the world in billionaires.
2. Collapse, by Jared Diamond
The author notes that collapses of societies throughout history "tended to follow somewhat similar courses...unsustainable practices led to environmental damage..." He traces this path through past societies such as the Mayans in Mexico and the Norse in Greenland, then returns us to our modern-day problems with a discussion of Montana, which has been heavily damaged by the mining of copper and coal and clear-cutting of timber, while many of the profits have gone to out-of-state investors.
There are deniers, of course, who accuse Diamond of being an environmental alarmist. But Montana has 20,000 abandoned mines covering more acreage than in any other state. It experienced the second slowest per capita growth rate (behind Alaska) between 1950 and 1999, in good part because of the decline in mining and logging and oil extraction. Today, with some of the largest coal reserves in the nation, the state's so-called "Coal Cowboy" governor Brian Schweitzer is lobbying for the strip-mining of 10,000 acres of public land for new development. As if to weigh one bad decision against another, members of Congress are recommending that Montana land simply be sold off.
It's not fair to pick on any one state, but Montana may be the best example of an American treasure at risk. The only certainty is that all states are victims of our disregard for the environment. All reputable members of the scientific community agree with this.
As Bernie Sanders reminds us, clean alternatives are gaining rapidly in output, efficiency, and cost. In four years we've tripled solar output while cutting the cost in half, with similar productivity gains for wind power. The industry waits for a national commitment to unleash the creativity of small business innovators. It's beginning to happen at the local level.
3. Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
The authors define 'extractive' and 'inclusive' societies -- the former controlled by a wealthy ruling elite that undermines economic growth for the masses; the latter like America in its infancy, which Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de Tocqueville praised as egalitarian and democratic.
Much further back, in the 14th century, the prosperous city of Venice promoted inclusiveness by allowing any risk-taker to invest in trade expeditions, but then succumbed to the demands of the upper class to exclude commoners. The Venetian economy experienced rising inequality and a hurried collapse.
According to the authors, modern-day China faces the same fate, despite its dramatic recent growth, because of an extractive ruling class and a fast-rising inequality level.
How about our own modern-day America? Shockingly, we have the 5th-highest wealth disparity among 150 countries. In a transfer of wealth suggestive of an extractive society, the richest 10 Americans increased their estates by an average of over $5 billion each last year. Each one of them gained enough from largely passive investments in one year to pay the salaries of 100,000 teachers.
At the other extreme, in numbing contrast, the median wealth of a single black or Hispanic woman is a little over $100.
It gets even worse. There's no way for the great majority of low-income Americans to advance to a more prosperous level. Economic mobility has been falling, to the point that our citizens are provided less opportunity for advancement than almost all other OECD countries. According to a Pew study, only 4% of U.S. children born to families in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile as adults. 80% of them remain below the median income level all their lives.
Inequality is the scourge of nations in collapse. Plutarch knew it, in ancient times: "An imbalance between rich and poor," he said, "is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." Shelley depicted it in Ozymandias. America is stricken with it now. But we haven't yet collapsed. We still have a chance to be the land of opportunity, if we listen to the past, and to the people outside our borders.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Paul Buchheit
Paul Buchheit is a college teacher with formal training in language development and cognitive science. He is the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, RappingHistory.org, PayUpNow.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.
13 comments on "Ozymandias II: Why Our Nation is Failing"
October 23, 2012 11:17am
It is 43 years after the Moon landing. What engineering sense does it make to keep redesigning cars. But our economists have not been talking about planned obsolescence for the last 40 years.
October 22, 2012 8:57pm
ECONOMIC RENT: UNEARNED INCOME NEARLY 40% OF GNP?
Economic rent: the private collection of unearned income primarily from ownership of land and natural resources and to a lesser degree from monopoly of capital and many another monopoly (think bank interest, patents, corporate subsidies to start) is a concept well recognized in economics from the time of the French Physiocrats and Adam Smith onwards. In plain terms economic rent is the private collection of economic value created by someone else. In the case of land it is the collection of the value imparted to land by the community of all people. And some folks think we cannot afford our governments even though tapping into economic rent could fund all governments at every level with plenty to spare and this accompanied by the elimination of all taxation on earned incomes from labor and real investment of real capital in the real economy.
Slavery was such a mechanism and its ancient and modern but legal counterparts (did I mention private ownership of land and natural resources) make everyone virtual slaves. Economic rent from ownership of land is estimated at 33% of GNP with all other forms of such unearned income amounting to 40% or even more. It is itself monopolized in the hands of the wealthy few who have had centuries to accumulate it and who are grotesquely wealthy because of it. Not even the Marxists/socialists got this one right.
The failure of America is surely linked to the failure to speak clearly about the pernicious effect of concentrated ownership of assets and government privilege which give rise to unearned incomes. Failure to do anything serious or effective about it is the result. So little understood is it that people wander around saying they do not know what to do or saying sagely something that does not address the issue at all. It appears to me that the American dream is about obtaining a piece of economic rent so utterly unquestioned is it. As far as I can tell most if not all economists know and agree with this and they never speak of it along with but a very few of our public intellectuals who would rather focus on symptoms and band-aids rather than solutions. Solutions are on the table unused. Failure of a nation? You bet.
October 22, 2012 3:47pm
*OBAMANDIAS!* Love it!
October 22, 2012 3:01pm
This article points out various serious problems facing the USA.
That’s useful. But what's not useful is the focus on the fuzzy and uninformative terms ‘failing’ and ‘failure’.
The article's title and text from the start presume that it is self-evident without explanation that the USA is ‘failing’ - never mind the criteria of success. Rather than develop and explain such criteria systematically, the article instead turns to three books that each pull such criteria out of a hat. Because in each instance other countries have better-looking statistics on the criterion than does the USA (in some cases for reasons of history and demography and culture that reflect advantages on the criterion that those countries inherently have versus the USA) the result is described as the USA ‘failing’.
The would-be titilating title even claims that the article tells us WHY the USA is ‘failing’. But in fact all the article does is tell us that certain unhappy conditions are happening. In each case the ‘why’ is either absent or doesn’t go beyond the simple fact of the ‘what’.
The discussion also is hindered by some silly glib statements, for instance the first two made about the Friedman book:
‘American “exceptionalism” is the sense that we're better than other countries, and that we don't need to rely on them to solve problems like education and health care. Such isolation breeds delusion.’
First of all, many of us agree that America is ‘exceptional’ but do not thereby infer that therefore we are across-the-board ‘better’ than others. In fact, the article admits - but waits until its very last sentence to disclose this - that what is most often deemed ‘exceptional’ about the USA is not that we are ‘better’ but that, to an exceptional degree, the USA is (or anyhow could be) a ‘land of opportunity’.
Second, with or without being ‘exceptional’, why indeed should the USA (or indeed most countries) ‘need to rely’ on other countries ‘to solve problems like education and health care’? A society’s self-reliance need be neither ‘exceptional’ nor unreasonable. Being open to learning from other countries does not equate to ‘relying on’ them.
Nor does self-reliance (or a sense of being exceptional) equate to (or necessarily lead to) ‘isolation’.
October 22, 2012 4:12pm
@JoeWeinstein
Hi Joe. I think by failure, these are two good examples:
(1) "We ignore the success of public education systems in Finland and Japan, and instead try to turn our schools into profit-making centers."
(2) "Health care doesn't measure up, either. 25 years ago we ranked 7th in life expectancy. Now we're 38th. We're falling behind other countries in the rate of infant mortality, partly because we have a higher child poverty rate than any OECD country other than Romania. We spend over twice as much as other developed countries on health care, yet we reject their successes as "socialist." "
Source: The Measure of a Nation, by Howard Steven Friedman
I'd call those failures by comparison.
October 29, 2012 4:10pm
I agree that your examples do point to problems worth pondering, but these examples, as stated, don't tell us exactly what - if anything - actually has 'failed'.
On (1) Exactly what is meant by 'success' of public education systems? Finland and Japan are both anyhow very different from the USA - each is relatively homogeneous culturally, and in a benign sense each has a more conservative society - one of higher standard expectations: society's expectations of parents and parents' expectations of and enforced standards on children. Quite possibly what's really problematic here are our lower standards and not inherently our public schools.
On (2). Again, we have a less homogeneous society, and with a far larger proportion of recent immigrants and second-generation folk whose genetic predispositions or health habits may be in question. Also, by some accounts, far more than in other societies many of us are poisoning ourselves by 'fast'- or 'franken'-'food' diets and sedentary lifeways: so life expectancy may not really be a question of professional or other externally administered 'health care'. Because childhood lasts a long time whereas infancy does not, it's also not clear that infant mortality need owe very much to 'child poverty'.
Thanks for raising these matters.
October 22, 2012 3:02pm
I very much appreciate the thoughtful and educated comments, but I am afraid the comparisons to the Depression, etc., are only mildly relevant at this point, give that the "power base" of world economics has changed so drastically. The reason I say this is that aside from the disappearing middle class, which we already know is endangering the immediate future of our democracy, no previous economic crisis involved banks and corporations on this scale. Worldwide we now have probably some 1,000 companies so large and so multinational that they have little concern about the demise of the US economy specifically, and will simply keep their distance in terms of investments until our economy has collasped, at which point they can uniformly make enormous gains in just "cherrypicking the scraps", buying everything for 10% of value, consolidating wealth beyond our wildest imaginations.
I must laugh to hear the complaints of "government control", as again these banks and corporations have become so large and influential over the past generation, the government now has virtually no control whatsoever. Aside from the ridiculous chaos on Wall Street, where the average investment is already overvalued at something like 57 times, consider for a moment that 80,000 synthetic chemicals have been introduced into our environment since 1940, yet somehow, in part due to the 1976 Toxic Substances Act, only 200 of these chemicals have ever been tested, and virtually never in combination, despite the fact that 41% of Americans will contract cancer in their lifetimes, and this percentage is steadily growing.
Then Nixon, bless his soul, gave us the most burdensome medical insurance program in the world, costing TWICE the average of any other modern system, and certainly one of the least effective, as there is little evidence that most prescription drugs or surgeries can counter the determination made by the National Science Foundation some 25 years ago, that 85% of all disease results from poor nutrition. Yet the Dept. of Agriculture continues to provide huge subsidies for growing crops that contribute to our obesity and high blood pressure, and the new book "Food Rules" makes the argument that about one third of "food" now offered in a conventional grocery store is so adulterated as to no longer provide nutrition of any kind.
And while everyone argues ad nauseum over "Obamacare" or "Romneycare", only two weeks ago the National Institute of Medicine issued a report and press release to the effect that our current system wastes about $750 billion per year, and would actually provide BETTER service if the waste was eliminated. Then absolutely nobody discusses the "elephant of health care in the livingroom", that it is virtually impossible for the US to compete economically with other countries offering universal health care, as that service in other countries is provided by taxes, NOT by business! It is absolutely amazing to me that the focus of most political platforms nationwide is relieving small business of tax burden, yet there is no talk whatsoever of the US simply joining the rest of the modern world in providing universal health care, thereby relieving business of that burden entirely. Then we would also finally have a truely open system of competition for medical methodology, at which point more than half the US treatments, including so many incredibly expensive drugs and surgeries that have very marginal or even nonexistent success rates, would simply disappear, no longer protected by the ongoing collusion between corporations and the FDA. Remember, once the FDA classifies a condition as a "disease", they gain absolute authority over what is considered viable treatment, thereby eliminating so many better and cheaper therapies readily available outside the US.
Then, last but hardly least, in our US "exceptualism", we completely ignore the worldwide progression to underground fiber optics, and away from wireless technology, as wireless was proved to be a very real threat to public health already 50 years ago, by Dr. Allan Frey at Colgate University. His study concluded that non-ionizing radiation exposure damaged the brains of rats, and his reward was to have his funding terminated by his sponsor, the Navy, and his work discredited. In fact, 2,000 studies on non-ionizing radiation, the majority of which demonstrate real health hazards, were declassified by the military in 1976, so they already have known about the health risks of wireless technology for a very long time.
Yet, Congress rejected the EPA recommendations for standards on wireless technology proposed in 1987, and these were based on more than a decade of research performed with some 30 scientists. Then, to add insult to injury, with overwhelming pressure and $12 million in campaign contributions from the telecommunications industry, Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Section 704 of this federal law explicity prohibits environmental considerations in the placement of wireless techology, demonstrating complete disregard and disrepect for the essential role of land use and zoning laws to protect the public. It is illegal, yes, illegal, to discuss health concerns at city council or county commission public hearings regarding the placement of cell towers, limitations on the power transmissions from those cell towers, or proximity to residences or schools particularly.
While the telecommunications industry continues to dupe the American public about the safety of their service, as well as coerce us into accepting their dangerous wireless systems instead of moving quickly to underground fiber optics, India just announced that they will lower their maximum cell tower radiation exposure limits by 90%, although their original standard is similar to the one endorsed by the US. Almost simultaneously, Russia has announced that they will simply give us 50 years of their research to help us reduce exposure levels and thereby prevent us from mass epidemics of cancer, strokes and heart attacks, as well as asking us to pull Wi-Fi out of all schools. Then the Israeli Minister of Health requested that we pull Wi-Fi out of schools as well. All three of these press releases were issued in the last month, as the rise in exposure levels to 4G radiation emissions and powerful WiMax distribution systems has created an immediate health crisis.
Does everyone get the picture yet? Chemicals, nutrition, medical care and telecommuncations, which are at the very centerpoint of our lives, will never be properly monitored unless the government has far more control over regulations, which are now, like our elections, controlled by industry. Thus, our "standards" are based largely on political and legal pressure, NOT science. Thus, because of this lack of proper oversight, our democratic way of life, and the amenities of fresh food, health care focused on nutrition and exercise, a productive, healthy workforce, and so much more that is required for us to remain a world leader and power, is seriously threatened. While so many are focused on "outside threats" from factions in other countries, I am far more terrified by a lifestyle that is no longer financially or environmentally sustainable, a populace in the poorest physical and mental condition in US history, and two military generals writing a letter to the editor of our local paper recently, explaining that 75% of our youth do not even qualify for the minimum standards of military service, let alone college!
Let us work together to make a paradigm change nationwide right now, one that virtually bypasses the relentless politcial struggle in Congress that has rendered that institution, for the moment, all but powerless to help us. And in the Gandhi tradition, this movement needs to be focused entirely on non-violent protests and positive policy and program development, as any and all violence, without viable solutions, renders us to be entirely powerless, both as individuals, and as a society.
October 22, 2012 11:50am
I also believe that we have a problem with American exceptionalism, although my take is much different than that presented here. I think our exceptionalism allows us, even in the face of failure after failure of government-controlled economies, to believe that we Americans can do socialism better. The failures of the former USSR, North Korea, and Cuba (to name just a few) did not occur because they as a people are inferior to Americans. No, it was because their governments attempted to run command-and-control economies. And despite these examples and the current catastrophic financial condition of the U.S. government, American exceptionalism continues to delude people into thinking that we can do socialism better. (Call it progressivism, if you prefer that euphemism. They are one and the same.)
I have read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, which is excellent as are all of his other books. The most important thing I took away from this book is that we have many more things to fear immediately than global warming. We are currently destroying parts of the environment, particularly waterways and forests. By the way, I am a libertarian, and wholeheartedly believe in minimalist government. I do, however, think that protecting the environment must be addressed at the federal government level, (perhaps best labeled as part of national defense). This is unlike the other 99% of what the federal government does, such as the highway system, which need not be done at the national level. Or Social Security and Medicare, which certainly should not be administered by a federal government. (Unlike most libertarians, I would be willing to compromise by allowing the creation of mandatory IRAs and mandatory health savings accounts (after some needed improvements to the current HSA structure); even to include annual contributions by the federal government into the accounts of the poor. Then free market decisions by consumers of health care will drive prices down; and no poor, old, sick, etc. need suffer the tragic fates so feared by those on the left.)
As for the third notion here, that of income inequality, this is much ado about nothing. When consumers are free to purchase as they choose and producers are free to produce what they choose, some people are going to become wealthier than others. It is irrelevant whether they got wealthy by hard work, genius, luck, or inheritance. Wealth disparity is a natural occurrence when people are free to conduct commerce amongst themselves. What should we do to make it more “fair”? Take money away from the rich and successful? By force, if necessary? Hmmm. Yeah. Does this sound any fairer than allowing people to keep what they earn? Should we start with a small group of Brownshirts to begin enforcement?
In his (or her) comment, LARRONM made reference to 1929. Most readers probably don’t realize that 1929 was the last peak in income disparity in this country, until now. And guess how that “problem” got cured. The answer: By the Great Depression of the 1930s. And guess how today’s income disparity will be cured. The answer: By the Greater Depression that has been in progress since the NASDAQ topped in 1999, but which is not yet over and has not yet hit its maximum strength. When today's Greater Depression is finished, there won’t be any more rich people. It may sound satisfying to hear a prediction for the ruination of the richest people in the country (the richest men in 1929 ended up either broke, dead, alcoholic, or insane by the end of the 1930s), but the money that has been funding American “progressivism” will die with them. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We are very near that point and closing fast.
FreeMarketUnderdog.com
October 22, 2012 2:28pm
You people always think Socialism is great unless it's benefits extend below the level of the wealthy elite. We've recently seen blatant examples of this with the FED extending financial assistance to the various wealthy bankers, nationally and internationally, in the form of Quantitative Easing that the taxpayers of this country will have to pay for with higher taxes in a declining wage and job environment and the cutting of the remaining social benefits that have at best provided our citizens with a safety net that barely equals those of Europe. But as you blindly praise Capitalism with no real specifics you feel that your free to attack Socialism for the masses, a subject on which we’ve never had a real discussion. But that doesn’t matter because we’ve never been able to hold a national debate on Capitalism that has resulted in eleven recessions and now two major Depressions in the last seventy five years. A system that is simply an extension of the feudal systems of Europe that insured their citizens remained virtual slaves in an oligarchical system of wealthy lords ! The only thing that is exceptional about this country is the sheep that refuse to stand up and fight back for their right to exist as free citizens of this planet. We will have to depend on the people of Europe who are now fighting this battle and hope the results of their efforts extend to these shores !
October 22, 2012 1:18pm
"It is irrelevant whether they got wealthy by hard work, genius, luck, or inheritance." It's very relevant, however, if they got wealthy by buying special favors from Congress, isn't it? It's relevant if they lied, cheated and stole their wealth from the rest of us, isn't it?
October 22, 2012 10:41am
In addition to the readings suggested by Mr. Buchheit, let me recommend "The Twilight of the Elites" by Christopher Hayes. In this work the author describes how the elites have been gaming the system to their benefit. It has become increasingly apparent that the Right has no regard for history or facts. It has been said that "Those who ignor the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Within the last 120 years there have been 3 major economic collapses in the US (1898, 1929 & 2007) all of which occurred with inequality at record levels. In each case the nation's wealth had been shifted into the hands of fewer and fewer people leaving the middle class deprived of the means necessary to drive the economy forward. In each case the economy collapsed rapidly leaving behind a recession which would require many years to recover. Finally, in each case the recovery was fueled by large amounts of government spending. The Panic of 1898's recovery was began byPresident Roosevelt's trust busting and finally the efforts of WWI. The Depression which began in 1929 with the collapse of the stock market was propelled downword by Presidnet Hoover's conservative agenda turned around by FDR's "New Deal" policies and was finally ended by the massive spending in persuit of WWII. The current situation, beginning in 2007, has yet to be resolved but the stimulous bill of 2009 and Obama administration policies have helped to turn things around. There is no question but that had it not been for the GOP filibusters and obstructionism, the recovery would have been more robust. Nevertheless, this election will determine which course the nation will take over the next 4 years. We are at the critical turning point in economic recovery. All recent indicators point to a dynamic recovery beginning over the next few months. Will the next administration fuel further growth or will they put in place policies which will stifle growth while shifting even more wealth upward into the hands of those who now control the levers of power? The re-election of President Obama together with a Democratic Congress will insure the former. Should Mr. Romney be elected the future is uncertain as he has refused to clarify exactly what policies he would follow. All signs would suggest that he would persue policy positions advocated by the conservatives and the far right. If this is our future, the lessons of history are clear.
October 22, 2012 9:41am
Once a government loses its CREDIBILITY its gone....
Neither party is addressing the needs of the people
two wars based on lies.....Banks that are too big to fail
Wall Street with its diveratives
The government with its free trade agrements.....
. . . . . . . . . . when confronted and asked for specifics – which loopholes, in particular – both XXXXXX and XXXX have demurred, telling interviewers that they'd negotiate those details with Congress after the election.
AFTER THE ELECTION. .
Our money will be in Afghanistan till 2024 ???
............CREDIBILITY............
October 22, 2012 9:30am
In equality also drives ecological collapse. use less, share more is the only way forward