This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media. Today we look at the US military-industrial complex, health care in emerging nations, and poverty in the US 50 years after President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty."
The National Security State
What we used to term the military-industrial complex has grown far beyond President Eisenhower's deepest concerns when he warned us against it in his farewell speech in 1961. In a January 5 post, Tom Engelhardt re-imagines national security as a proselytizing warrior religion. As Engelhardt writes: "The expansion of Washington’s national security state -- let’s call it the NSS -- to gargantuan proportions has historically met little opposition....At a cost of nearly a trillion dollars a year, its main global enemy consists of thousands of lightly armed jihadis and wannabe jihadis scattered mainly across the backlands of the planet....No matter how you cut it, the NSS is a Ripley’s Believe It or Not of staggering numbers that, once you step outside its thought system, don’t add up. The U.S. national defense budget is estimated to be larger than those of the next 13 countries combined -- that is, simply off-the-charts more expensive. The U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carrier strike groups when no other country has more than two....It is creating a jet fighter that will be the most expensive weapons system in history. Its weapons makers controlled 78% of the global arms market in 2012.... After all, if the twenty-first century has taught us anything, it’s that the most expensive and over-equipped military on the planet can’t win a war. Its two multi-trillion-dollar attempts since 9/11, in Iraq and Afghanistan, both against lightly armed minority insurgencies, proved disasters." Calling the NSS a remarkable failure, he concludes that the national security state "has made other options ephemeral and more immediate dangers than terrorism to the health and well being of Americans seem, at best, secondary. It has pumped fear into the American soul. It is a religion of state power."
Health Care
As we struggle here in this country supporting our overblown military budget while looking for ways to cut the social safety net and deny access to affordable health insurance to the more vulnerable in our society, it's interesting to look at the approach to health care in developing countries. James Akazili and Charlotte Soulary write in January's Le Monde Diplomatique that "In an unequal 21st-century world, access to healthcare is key to fighting poverty and ensuring social cohesion." They describe the growing focus on Universal Health Care in the developing world. The World Health Organization, the UN General Assembly and the World Bank have come out in support of Universal Health Care (UHC). "Governments are taking action: China, Thailand, South Africa and Mexico are some of the first emerging economies scaling up public investment in health, and many low-income countries, especially in Africa, have introduced free healthcare policies as a first step towards universal coverage." With the need for UHC generally acknowledged, the discussion now is focusing on finance mechanisms. The authors warn against a one-size-fits-all approach in financing the health care system. "According to the WHO, only eight low-income countries will be in a position to fully finance UHC from domestic resources in 2015. More long-term and predictable aid is vital, to help build effective public health systems and also to improve public financial management and taxation systems so that countries can become self-sufficient."
In another Le Monde Diplomatique article, Carina Vance writes of the prominent place that health care has in Ecuador's new (2008) constitution. Article 32 of the Ecuadorian constitution states: “Health is a right guaranteed
by the state and whose fulfillment is linked to the exercise of other
rights, including the right to water, food, education, sport, work,
social security, a healthy environment and everything that promotes
well-being." The result: "Ecuadorians are benefitting from an unprecedented redistribution of
wealth. This historic effort has allowed public health to become a key
factor in social justice. The increase in the number of hospitals and
healthcare centres throughout the country has given millions of patients
access to services from which they had been excluded, because of
distance, poverty, discrimination or lack of information."
Poverty in America
Fifty years ago in his State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty" - a war, he said, the "richest nation on Earth can afford to win....We cannot afford to lose it." A Mother Jones post on January 8 looks back at the distance we've come in combatting poverty in the years since. "Johnson's administration went on to design "Great Society" initiatives, including a permanent food stamp program, Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, which provides early education to low-income kids, and increased funding to public schools....The war on poverty helped raise millions above the poverty line. During Johnson's years in office, the poverty rate dropped from 23 percent to 12 percent." The article presents charts that show how the social safety net has reduced poverty, the steep decreases in elderly and child poverty, the lack of progress in preventing "deep poverty" (half the poverty line - i.e., those living on an income of less than $11,775 a year for a family of four), the number of Americans living on $2/day, the cost of living in various American cities, and the continuing racial disparity for the poorest 20%. The authors (Erika Eichelberger, Jaeah Lee, and AJ Vicens) conclude "So have we won the war on poverty? If it means that the lives of millions of Americans in poverty have improved under the Great Society programs, yes. But by no means have we attained Johnson's goal of 'curing' poverty. The poverty rates of certain demographic groups remain stagnant and racial disparities are as wide as ever."
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Imagining a Better 2014
2013 is winding down. We've already posted the best news of the year, so let's imagine what 2014 might look like if peace and justice somehow overwhelmed the nations of the world.
The late Howard Zinn wrote in A People's History of the United States that the world would be a better place if the United States chose to be a humanitarian, rather than a military, superpower - using "this wealth to improve the living conditions of Americans and people in other parts of the world." This seems like a good place to start. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the US military budget since the end of the Cold War was used for humanitarian purposes? Since 1989, the United States has spent more than $13 trillion on its military budget. The impact that this sum might have had on education, disease eradication, agricultural improvements and poverty reduction is staggering. As Zinn notes "it was estimated by the World Health Organization that a small portion of the American military budget, if given to the treatment of tuberculosis in the world, could save millions of lives."
By implementing policies that advance the world's well-being, we would take a giant step towards reducing some of the traditional causes of unrest and war. And in securing our own safety. It's a myth that terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because of our policies. Empire has a cost that there is no need to bear any longer. Peacefully supporting the right to self-determination would show that our concept of democracy extends to all people.
Stopping the flow of arms and military aid would reduce tensions and the possibility of war. Here at home, removing weapons from the streets and keeping them from the hands of felons and the mentally unstable would make our own country a safer place. Finally, the United States and other countries with atomic weapons could provide the world with a real example of non-proliferation by dismantling its nuclear arsenals.
Pope Francis has it right. As the dominant global economic system, capitalism should be regulated so that its benefits accrue to all, not just to a small percentage. Economic inequality can be overcome by a just system of taxation and regulation. Or as Nelson Mandela said, "Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings."
That leads us to a final consideration. What do we do about racism, sectarian violence and tribal and nationalistic hatreds? It all comes down to fear and demonization of "the other". In October Pope Francis stressed the need to fight "all forms of racism, intolerance and anti-Semitism" and noted that "every time a minority is persecuted and marginalised because of his religious beliefs or ethnicity, the good of the whole society is in danger”. [Catholic Herald] But what to do about it? Here's Nelson Mandela again: "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."
Maybe peace and justice on earth in 2014 are too much to hope for. But we can at least make a step forward in our own lives and behavior. And we can recognize for what they are, those damaging and divisive ideologies and policies that move us away from a better world.
The late Howard Zinn wrote in A People's History of the United States that the world would be a better place if the United States chose to be a humanitarian, rather than a military, superpower - using "this wealth to improve the living conditions of Americans and people in other parts of the world." This seems like a good place to start. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the US military budget since the end of the Cold War was used for humanitarian purposes? Since 1989, the United States has spent more than $13 trillion on its military budget. The impact that this sum might have had on education, disease eradication, agricultural improvements and poverty reduction is staggering. As Zinn notes "it was estimated by the World Health Organization that a small portion of the American military budget, if given to the treatment of tuberculosis in the world, could save millions of lives."
By implementing policies that advance the world's well-being, we would take a giant step towards reducing some of the traditional causes of unrest and war. And in securing our own safety. It's a myth that terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because of our policies. Empire has a cost that there is no need to bear any longer. Peacefully supporting the right to self-determination would show that our concept of democracy extends to all people.
Stopping the flow of arms and military aid would reduce tensions and the possibility of war. Here at home, removing weapons from the streets and keeping them from the hands of felons and the mentally unstable would make our own country a safer place. Finally, the United States and other countries with atomic weapons could provide the world with a real example of non-proliferation by dismantling its nuclear arsenals.
Pope Francis has it right. As the dominant global economic system, capitalism should be regulated so that its benefits accrue to all, not just to a small percentage. Economic inequality can be overcome by a just system of taxation and regulation. Or as Nelson Mandela said, "Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings."
That leads us to a final consideration. What do we do about racism, sectarian violence and tribal and nationalistic hatreds? It all comes down to fear and demonization of "the other". In October Pope Francis stressed the need to fight "all forms of racism, intolerance and anti-Semitism" and noted that "every time a minority is persecuted and marginalised because of his religious beliefs or ethnicity, the good of the whole society is in danger”. [Catholic Herald] But what to do about it? Here's Nelson Mandela again: "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."
Maybe peace and justice on earth in 2014 are too much to hope for. But we can at least make a step forward in our own lives and behavior. And we can recognize for what they are, those damaging and divisive ideologies and policies that move us away from a better world.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Jim Wallis' "On God's Side"
I've been reading On God's Side
by Jim Wallis. The book could well serve as a moral compass for
politicians of all stripes. The title, of course, refers to Abraham
Lincoln's famous quote: "...my concern is not whether God is on
our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side." Jim Wallis has long been one of my favorite writers. He is an evangelical preacher, social activist, public theologian, the founder and president of Sojourners ("Faith in Action for Social Justice") and the editor of Sojourners magazine. On God's Side continues his fine tradition of badgering political and religious establishments. In the first part of the book, he discusses inspiring the common good; in the second part, practices (i.e., actions and behaviors) for the common good.
C.S. Lewis' character of Aslan the lion, the creator and leader of Narnia (The Chronicles of Narnia), is given as an exemplar of a leader working for the common good. Aslan makes "every decision and action in the best interest of the people and the land...always paying special attention to the weakest and most vulnerable." The concept of the common good, writes Wallis, is "something that has been lost in an age of selfishness."
Wallis takes both Republicans and Democrats to task for not serving the "common good". At first, this bothered me: what's he talking about? Surely the problem with not serving the common good is on the right end, not the left end, of the political spectrum. After making this general statement, though, Wallis gradually clarifies his position. Not only are Republicans defective in their ability to advance the public good; Democrats do not go far enough!
In the first
section of his book, "Inspiring the Common Good", Wallis
provides the heart of his biblical and theological argument for a
"gospel of the common good." He writes of the Beatitutdes
("Blessed are the poor in spirit...those who mourn...the
meek...those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (justice)...the
merciful...the pure in heart (have integrity)...the
peacemakers...those persecuted for righteousness' sake") and the
Sermon on the Mount as the place to begin to understand what is meant
by Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God.
After briefly
relating his college and activist experiences in the late 60's and
early 70's, Wallis dicusses the "Judgment of Nations" in
Matthew 25, probably one of the most challenging texts of the New
Testament. It's one of the few places where Jesus makes a point of
saying who better be watching their backs at the Last Judgment.
"Jesus, unlike our religious institutions, continually speaks
out against judgmentalism. But the only time Jesus is
judgmental himself is on the subject of the poor." The
condemned, the goats, are shocked by what Jesus will say to them at
the Last Judgment. "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or
without clothes, or a stranger, or sick, or in prison?" He will
answer them, "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of
these least ones, you did not do for me." [Click here for a link to Matthew 25. The text of
the "judgment of nations" is in verses 31 to 46.]
Wallis makes two
particular points in his discussion of Matthew 25. The first is that
"nations", as well as individuals, are being judged. This is
about collective as well as individual decisions about who or what is
most important. The second is that "Christ's judgment here is
not about having the wrong doctrine or theology; it's not about
sexual misdeeds, or any other personal sin or failure. The
everlasting judgment here is based on how we have treated the poorest
and most vulnerable in our midst and in the world...[The] good or ill
we have done to them [is]...the moral equivalent of how we have
treated him."
The interests and
well-being of the poor are not represented well in American politics.
Today it is the rare politician who goes out of his or her way to
advocate programs for the poor or working class. Poverty doesn't
play well in American politics and "pollsters tell both parties
that talking about 'poor people' and 'poverty' will not be popular."
There are even those in our nation who stigmatize the poor and blame
the victims of social injustice, rather than the system that has made
it so. For examples from today's headlines, one needs only look at recent attempts to slash the food stamp program. On an upbeat note, Wallis relates the
mostly-untold story of how "faith community leaders protected
low-income entitlements in the sequestered automatic cuts agreed to
in the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal." Two years later, it
looks like it's time to gear up again.
When discussing the
well-known parable of the Good Samaritan, Wallis writes: "The
basic ethic from the Good Samaritan parable - that there are no
boundaries for our definition of "neighbor" - needs to be
the moral guide and compass for us now in an increasingly globalized
world." He further develops the theme with a discussion of the
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's "beloved community," the
spiritual and philosophical vision that inspired and drove his
efforts for civil rights. The beloved community is one which
"welcomes all tribes." Quoting Dr. King: "All I'm
saying is simply this; that all life is interrelated, that somehow we
are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. Whatever affects
one directly affects all indirectly."
On God's Side
forces us to reexamine many other issues in light of Matthew 25 and
the parable of the Good Samaritan - including immigration reform, the
global nature of "our neighbor" (for example, how our
clothes and mobile phones are made), the dangers inherent in American
exceptionalism, and the war on terror. On the war on terror, Wallis
calls for the application of the principles of conflict resolution.
He writes of "forging alternative and more creative responses to
issues of injustice and violence and rejecting the cycle of terrorism
and war that marks Washington's failed strategy and failed moral
logic." He excoriates what he calls the theology of war "coming
from some political leaders...and even from some...religious
communities...Effective campaigns of fear too easily convince anxious
people and could lead our nation to decades of virtually endless
wars."
Will Jim Wallis'
theological and biblical argument for the common good and Martin
Luther King's wish for the building of a "beloved community"
resonate with today's political leaders and citizens? Or have we gone
too far down the road to divisiveness and fear of the "Other"?
Will we need to wait for the next generation of political leaders to
bring about a truly just, equal and democratic society? The second
section of Jim Wallis' On God's Side, "Practices for the
Common Good" attempts to provide an answer. I'll take this up
in a future post.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Other America
 |
| Michael Harrington (Wikipedia) |
He exposes the side of America that many Americans were unaware of - the poverty of the rural poor and that of the inner cities. The Other America states that there exists a culture of poverty that prevents those caught in its grip from being able to rise above their state. Harrington's analysis also shows that the poor are poor not because of any personal failure of their own but rather because this is what the general society produced. The programs instituted in 60's and 70's have helped significantly but poverty and hunger are still factors of life for tens of millions of Americans.
The Great Recession, the result of several decades of supply side economics and deregulation, has thrown millions of Americans into poverty. As of September 2011, there were 46.2 million poor - the greatest number in the 52 years these statistics have been kept.
The right have a tough time distinguishing cause from effect. To hear the arguments popular on the right, it is as though the victims of the culture of poverty are actually the perpetrators. Protect the wealth of the richest and attack those who would help those who need it most (e.g., "the food stamp President"). Insist on returning to the policies that led us into the current mess and ignore the Keynesian fiscal policies that kept us out of serious depression for many decades. Focus on the deficit when the real issue right now is jobs.
Backed by hundreds of millions of dollars from those that will benefit most and egged-on by the "fear and loathing" of the right wing media echo-chamber, these extremists have hijacked the national conversation . The "Third Way" politics of the center has been an inadequate response to the challenge posed by the radical right and their wealthy corporate backers.
Michael Harrington died in 1989. Since then there have been precious few progressive voices that challenge the conventional wisdom of the center and precious few centrists that challenge the lunacy of the right. And, after yesterday's primaries, there is one less progressive voice on the national stage. Dennis Kucinich was gerrymandered out of his district by Ohio's Republican-held legislature. He ran against a long term Democratic incumbent in another district and lost. I am truly sorry to see him leave Congress. Dennis will be missed - especially in the midst of the Iran debate as we hear the war hawks spitting out their timeless stupidities and as we slowly drift towards what would be another terrible and disastrous war in the Middle East.
Links:
The Lost Decade (NYT)
The Poverty of An Idea (Isserman, NYT)
Rereading Michael Harrington's The Other America (Dissent, 2002)
Note: An earlier version of this post sent you to an out of date website for the Michael Harrington Center for Democratic Values and Social Change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)