We People Versus Me People
Eunice and I hugging a Redwood Tree at the Grove of 100 Giants far above the River Kern
June 7
Now is finals time at the school where I teach, which accounts for the absence of entries the past couple of days. Also, in the near future, after turning in grades, Eunice and I plan to go on a 10 day trip, so there will be a rather large break in my posts. Today, I wish to briefly explain what I mean by the "we people versus the me people."
The We People Versus the Me People Part 10: Why Do I Say That?
Actually, the answer to this question is something I have known to some extent at least since I was a teenager in high school. Thom Hartmann talks about it frequently, which basically confirms and adds some further information to what I already knew. However, I have not encountered much evidence that people as a whole realize it, at least not in the United States. I think it is because of media brainwashing that most people don't see what I see. It is also probably because of a lack of psychological sophistication, and it is also definitely cultural. It may be what led me to be a psychologist, and being a psychologist has reinforced it, which may explain why psychologists, as a group, are probably the most progressive profession that there is. By now, you are probably wondering "what is he talking (writing, actually) about? What is the answer?
I have long been noted for being trusting, even easy to take advantage of. That is my orientation toward life. It is better to be trusting and risk being hurt, than to be paranoid, ensuring a miserable existence. I have noticed that people generally have either a trusting, or a paranoid approach to life as a whole. This is much like the first stage in Erik Erikson's famous theory of psychosocial stages of life. It is the most fundamental orientation of people toward life. Erikson traces it to parenting practices with infants, but I suspect that it is much more complex than that. Genetics plays a role, with some people being more fearful than others. I believe self-determination is the biggest factor, though, especially in those old enough to make one of life's most fundamental decisions: Are people on the whole trustworthy, or not? This is very similar to Albert Einstein's famous statement that the most important decision a person has to make is whether one lives in a friendly or a hostile universe.
Very simply, the "we people" are trusting people, that is, people who generally trust other people, while the "me people" are people who generally are paranoid about other people. Being a "we person" leads to society building, with a leading role for government in bringing people together and providing infrastructure which allows every person the chance to live a happy and productive life. That is what I call a progressive orientation, which puts the public good, and social responsibility first, while cognizant of people's differences and the importance of individual freedoms. In fact, relative freedom within the context of a society is what allows people to develop their unique potentials which contribute to society's welfare. (Note that freedom is never absolute, but rather relative.) It is my assertion that a progressive orientation best contributes to the public good, social responsiblility, individual freedom, and the actualization of individual's unique potentials, because it affords the greatest number of people the greatest opportunities in an atmosphere of relative safety. Progressives also engage in a typically cooperative orientation toward other nations, viewing them as friends unless they prove otherwise. Progressives wish to lead by example, not be force, and wish to help citizens of other nations to lead happy and productive lives as well. By and large, a"we person" agrees with Franklin Roosevelt that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
The "me person" orientation, on the other hand, leads to a conservative mindset. The "me person" thinks of him or herself as one of the few good people in a scary world full of evil people. This is a view which is reinforced by Christianity and certain other religions such as Judaism which view people as essentially sinful and evil in nature. This is despite the fact that many "we people" actually are believers in religions which characterize people as basically evil. I am not sure what sort of mental gyrations or denial these people go through in order to be this way, but it is good in a way to know that belief in people can still exist somewhat independently of belief in religion which characterizes people as fundamentally sinful. However, the majority of "me people" do seem have a religious belief system which reinforces their view of people as not to be trusted. This is related to the Protestant Work Ethic, the idea that prosperity and success in life are living proof that a person is one of the few chosen good people. Strangely enough, there is also a nonbelievers' version of the Protestant Wrok Ethic, known as Social Darwinism -- the capitalist idea that the "cream will rise to the top," so to speak, so that only the best people will become rich, while in the minds of Social Darwinists, those lacking in money are inferior individuals and clearly losers in life's competitive struggles. Thus, "me people" may be rich and powerful, or they may not, but in either case, they tend to be obsessed with money and power, which provide "proof" of their unique goodness. They view the role of government as protecting the few good people from the masses of bad people. Thus, they tend to put great emphasis on national security and the role of the military, as well as "get tough on crime" law enforcement. They tend to view other nations as enemies and competitors, and seek world domination, which ultimately, leads to conflict and destruction. At the same time, they talk about limiting government, since they view government's other roles as essentially a waste of money, and reducing taxes, since taxes limit their ability to horde money, power, and resources. They love to talk about freedom, since they wish to be free of interference by others, but they still love to exploit others if given the opportunity to profit by those means, which ends up limiting the freedoms of those they exploit. What they really want is freedom and power for themselves, while using propaganda to sell a mere caricature of freedom and power for their opponents and victims. You may blame it on their mothers, you may blame it on their genetics, you may blame it on making the wrong decision early in life, or you may blame it on a combination of factors, but in either case, this "me person" mindset is ultimately a destructive one, while, in contrast, the "we person" mindset is a constructive one. Historically, the conservative, "me person" mindset is actually very similar to that of the feudal lords, rather than that of budding democracy.
By the way, progressivism and conservativism do not always conform to party lines, and over time, political parties change their orientations. There are conservative Democrats and occasional Progressive Republicans, although on the whole, Democrats tend to be the more progressive politicians, and Republicans, the more conservative ones in modern politics. However, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, was a radical reformer and progressive. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Republican Party began its move toward conservatism when Republicans basically sold out to business interests to get political funding and publicity. In fact, the Republican Party was considered to be liberal in the former slave states until at least the 1960's, since they still represented forced changes in racial relations. I sense we may have a progressive revolution, or evolution, in the offing here in the United States, hopefully a harmonious, democracy-based and bloodless one.
June 4
The We People Versus the Me People Part 9: The Kind of President I Want
Congratulations to Barack Obama! He officially went over the number of delegates needed to win the nomination of the Democratic Party. Thus, he is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, despite the reluctance of Hillary Clinton to quit her candidacy and her being an ungracious loser. This seems like the appropriate time to bring up a topic which I have been thinking about for quite a while -- that of what kind of president I would really like to have. It is unrealistic to expect that out next president will be exactly what I had hoped for, but Barack Obama seems to come the closest by far. I wish for a president of the United States who would:
1. Act as a "peacemonger," not a warmonger, one whose basic orientation is that of a pacifist who abhors war;
2. Maintain separation of church and state, and have an open mind to all forms of spiritual belief systems (or nonbelief systems);
3. Consistently advocate progressive policies, at the very least, some of those which have been sucessfully employed in other nations;
4. Put the people ahead of his/her own personal ambitions;
5. Commence with the building of a society which is more "we" oriented rather than "me" oriented, one in which the public good takes precedence over individual freedoms, when the two conflict, but individual freedom prevails as long as the public good is not threatened;
6. Make every attempt to bring people together "on both sides of the aisle" and works in a bipartisan manner, but does not give in or defer to the other side on any issue;
7. Treat all citizens of the United States equally regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, age, sexual orientation, or any other demographic characteristic;
8. Not use scare tactics or unfair campaign or election tactics to help his/her political future, nor that of his/her political party, but rather, rely on positive yet realistic messages;
9. Is an inspiration not only to citizens of the United States of America, but to people all over the world;
10. Make policy which helps improve peoples' quality of life all over the world, rather than exploiting them for our benefit, with the recogntion that ultimately, we on this earth all depend on each other;
11. Work to help control population increase around the world, with the recognition that quality of life and our environment depend on having a reasonable, sustainable human population on this planet;
12. Work to reduce global warming and pollution in the U.S. and worldwide, by motivating people to be environmentally conscious, and encouraging them to use new and effective "green" technology;
13. Believe in the mission of the United Nations and actively and cooperatively work with the United Nations, as well as other international organizations and individual nations ;
14. Actively emphasizes education and research as the underpinnings of a well-informed, technologically progressive society.
15. Appoints supreme court justices who are relatively impartial arbiters of the law.
Specifically, I wish our next president would:
1. Greatly reduce our military budget, thereby reducing our budget deficit;
2. Transition our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, while taking steps to peacefully help rebuild their societies, including infrastructure, education, and politics;
3. Reduce our military presence at bases around the world, to be replaced perhaps by United Nations forces, where needed;
4. Enforce the Sherman Anititrust Act;
5. Reverse policies which favor corporatism over the public good;
6. Make corporations and churches pay their fair share of taxes;
7. Look at the "big picture" and think of policy not just in terms of the present, but also the future;
8. Not be afraid to raise taxes on the wealthier individuals in the United States, or to suspend social security payments to those whose incomes are over a certain level, thus recuding our budget deficit.
9. Promotes legislation to reduce the power of lobbies.
10. Promotes socialized health care similar to that in Europe or Taiwan.
11. Promotes public funding of political campaigns, which will reduce the power of lobbies and the wealthy in political campaigns.
12. Initiates investigations into the wrongdoings of the previous admiistration.
There are probably other imoportant issues I have not thought of, but these 27 preceding items should certainly capture the essence of what I would like in a president.
I sincerely and fervently hope that Barack Obama will be elected as the United States next president, and furthermore, that he will be this type of president. Once again, congratulations, Barack! I consider you to be a friend of humanity.
June 2
The We People Versus the Me People Part 8: How Can We Shut Down the MIRP Complex?
It is pretty simple, really, We just undo, through social and political means, what the MIRP (military-industrial-religious-political) Complex has done, and move forward in a progressive manner. To break it down:
Military:
1. We need to demilitarize the United States, bringing our military budget down to a reasonable size for self-defense at home. and peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts abroad. A large military with new and increasingly sophisticated technology results in extreme temptation of politicians and military leaders to use these new weapons and other technologies even when there is no justifiable reason to.
2. We need to recognize the military as an integral part of the MIRP Complex, and thus, has become part of the problem. Members of the military deserve our pity, our symapthy for their sacrifices, our help with their physical and emotional problems, and our government sponsored benefits, and those who commit wrongdoing, our anger just as anyone else who commits offenses would elicit, and our gratitude in those instances when they serve humanity and create safety. However we need to recognize that, as the muscle of the MIRP Complex, they are being asked to carry out misguided and ill-informed policies which make us and the world less safe and more financially and environmentally burdened, and this is definitely not something to be grateful for. This is not especially the fault of military leadership or rank-and-file members of the military; they are basically following orders (although I believe that everyone must first follow his or her conscience). However, when the military does carry out bad policy, it becomes a major part of the problem, not part of the solution. We citizens of the United States need to make it clear that we do not approve of the use of our military to carry out policies of aggression, nor do we approve of the use scare tactics to increase the size of power of the military.
3. We must insist as citizens that the proper roles of the United States' military should be limited to those of first, defense against foreign invasion or possible terrorism on American soil, and secondly, international aid and peacekeeping, where needed, in cooperation with other nations (e.g, the United Nations), not to wage foreign wars and foreign occupations in order to satisfy the ambitions of our political and industrial leaders, nor to test their misguided belief in democracy by force. I shudder to think how ludicrous our United States' military must look to citizens of other countries. Actually, I have some idea of that from Eunice's relatives in Taiwan. (They hate Bush and his militarism.)
Industry:
`1. First, we need to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act once again.
2. Pass laws to prevent the privitization and rampant industrialization (e.g., war profiteering) of the military
3. Pass legislation allowing unions to thrive and whatever legislation is needed to make the distribution of wealth more fair (e.g., price controls, corporate taxes) and make this society more closely resemble the meritocracy it was intended to be.
Religion:
1. We need to repeal the tax-free status of churches, which was made with the understanding that religious leaders would not become involved in politics, a promise which recently, they have not kept.
2. Pass legislation to ensure that the military remains a secular institution.
Politics:
1. Elect leaders to federal positions, congresspeople, senators, and especially, presidents, who will support the reversal of the policies which have led to the MIRP Complex.
2. Let our politicians know that we are aware of the MIRP Complex, and the problems it creates, and want them to do something about it.
Education:
We need to educate the United States' voters about the society in which we live, including the history and present status of the military-industrial-religious-political complex, so that voters can make more informed choices. This could be done through any means of dipersing information, including public service messages, radio, television shows, movies, and of course, internet sites such as this.
May 31
The We People Versus the Me People Part 7: Why Scott McClellan is a Problem for McCain
Scott McClellan, the former spokesperson for the Bush Administration, has just recently unveiled a new book about his experiences as the Bush Administration's spokesperson during the period preceding and during the invasion of Iraq. In it, he basically recounts how he was mislead into giving the Bush Administration's version of what was going on in the world, which he has since realized to be untrue. Although I have not read his book, it appears that the book illustrates massive Groupthink (a recent topic in this blog) among Bush Administration members, Groupthink which has led to disastrous consequences. Among the characteristics of Groupthink shown by the Bush Administration (and I do not need McClellan's book to notice these):
1. A sense of moral superiority; they are the "good guys" in a world of few real "good guys." In fact, they take their orders from God, or at least, from the Bible. With such divine approval, how can they go wrong?;
2. A sense that they are the experts; they are the ones who really know what is going on;
3. Ignoring and/or suppressing information which contradicts their firmly held beliefs;
4. A massive propaganda campaign, with the complicity of the corporate media, to promulgate their point of view;
5. Secrecy -- their true policy making discussions occur behind closed doors, in private, and they never disclose the true nature of their policy decision making process;
6. The quality of virtually being a cult; in fact, the definition of a cult is so broad that virtually any strongly cohesive church or group with a common purpose could be called a cult. These people certainly qualify as a cult by those standards.
Looking at McClellan's book from a motivational and believablility standpoint, there are several factors to be considered:
1. From an attributional standpoint, McClellan's utterances as spokesperson for the Bush Administration take on a situational cast; he was compelled by others to say what he did, so what he was saying was not necessarily what he believed, assuming he valued his job. This is a problem for any spokesperson, actually. Now that he is free of the administration, his words are more likely to be attributed to his disposition, that he is now saying what he really believes, since there is no pressure on him to conform to the expectations of his superiors.This is the main reason that his book has believability. The implication is that he has noble motives in trying to correct the mistakes he had previously made, and inform the public of what was really going on in the Bush Administration.
2. Since he was fired, revenge may be a motivating factor behind his book.
3. Since he lost his job, money could be a what motivated him to write this book. (For all I know, he could have some other, lucrative job already, and probably does, but money could still be a factor.)
The revenge and money motives are what the Bush Administration and its waning supporters would like us to believe. However, the first factor, that he is now free to speak his mind, as he was not during his time as spokesman, seems to outweigh these other factors. Add to that the fact that now he stands behind his book, and is consistent in what he now says happened. This adds further believability to his story, as social psychology research has confirmed. A further factor helping McClellan is that for the most part, the public is inclined to believe him, anyway. By now, Americans have had ample opportunity to see for themselves how things work, or don't work, in the Bush Administration, and most Americans have become quite skeptical of these people.
Of course, all of this is a problem for the Bush Administration, and some of the information in the book could result in legal problems for Bush himself and others in the administration. However, the reach of this book goes beyond the current administration. As the torchbearer for the Republican Party, and the person who promises to continue the major portion of Bush Administration policy if elected president, John McCain's chances to become president are hurt by this book. This is another reason for McCain to dissociate himself from Bush, but he does not seem to be doing that. Perhaps he can't without losing the support of loyal Republicans. However, the percentage of the electorate who are loyal Republicans is fairly small, around 25% apparently, and dwindling. This is yet another reason for believing that Barack Obama is going to be our next president, and our first non-white president, at that.
May 29
It turned out that there were far more potential jurors at the courthouse than needed, as usual, so Eunice's jury duty was finished about 2 hours after it started. I was able to pick her up myself before I needed to get ready for class. Meanwhile, I have been preparing final exams for next week and the following week, which explain why there was no entry for yesterday.
The We People Versus the Me People Part 6: The Military-Industrial-Religious-Political Complex (The MIRP Complex)
Before Dwight Eisenhower finished his presidency, he warned the citizens of the United States about the danger of what he called a "military-industrial complex." Ironically, in the time since Reagan became president, his own party, the Republican Party, has led our nation into exactly this situation, with some complicity on the part of so-called "moderate" Democrats. I will make the argument here that not only has the prospect of a military-industrial complex been realized, but it has expanded to include religious concerns as well, all of which are conflated with politics, especially conservative politics. Thus, it may be a long and awkward term, but the military-industrial-religious-political complex (orto use an acronym, the MIRP Complex) is a proper term to use when speaking of the relations between national security, business, church and state in the minds of conservatives in the United States. To wit:
1. The United States' military forces are the worlds' most sophisticated, and spend far more money than that of any other nation, despite the fact that we face no credible military threat (remember that terrorists are not military, and the threat of terrorism is a much exaggerated one, anyway), and are probably one of the least threatened nations from a miliraty standpoint, in fact.
2.This bloated military supports and is supported by various industries which make equipment for the military, for which the military spends many of its billions of dollars.
3. This bloated military is gradually becoming supplemented by privatized military contractors, mercenaries essentially, such as Blackwater, especially since the invasion of Iraq, making the United States military presence even larger.
4. This bloated military is strategically employed to protect industrial interests around the world, such as oil interests, and now oil companies are making record profits.
5. Citizens of the United States are compelled to pay lip service to the U.S. military, as in the just-completed Memorial Day proceedings. Then there is Veteran's Day. The military is the only establishment I know of that has not only one but two Holidays devoted to honoring it. I suspect that such public displays of support for the military are motivated more by a sense of guilt on the part of our government for having sent these citizens to their deaths, and survivor's guilt on the part of the citizenry. Such displays of public support for the military tend to confuse the pity and sympathy people have for military members, and sadness for their sacrifices, with the notion that every military sacrifice must serve a just and noble cause. I will have more on this topic when discuss the nature of war.
6. Conservative evangelical Christians are among the biggest supporters of both the U.S. military, and Republican rule in our government.
7. Attempts are being made to "Christianize" our military, despite the fact that the United States is a secular society, in which people are free to worship, or not, as they please, and in which a diversity of religious opinion thrives. In fact, for at least two decades, the fastest growing religious faction in the United States is "no particular religion," which includes a variety of atheists, agnostics, deists, and spiritual persons who believe that no religion really represents the truth regarding spiritual matters.
8. Republicans routinely count on and depend upon the "religious right" to deliver large numbers of votes for their candidates. With their help, Republicans have dominated American politics at the federal level since Reagan was elected in 1980.
9. There has been additional conflation of religious and political interests in recent years, including so-called "faith-based initiatives," and conservative politicians, including George W. Bush, who claim to take their orders from God, resulting in Christian ideas influencing our government's policies, for example, limiting access to abortion services, and most dangerously, resulting in a bias against people of other faiths, especially Muslims. This has given many Muslims the impression that the United States is engaging in a sort of second version of the crusades, an impression that is not all that far from the truth. Even more worrisome, those who heed the call of Christian preachers that the so-called "end days" are here, may be attempting in their own way, with the help of politicians and military force, to bring about the battle of Armageddon and other prophecies written in the Bible's Book of Revelations. Meanwhile, since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, churches have enjoyed a tax-free status in the United States.
10. Political candidates, in order to have a serious chance of becoming president, at least, seem to need to pass a sort of invisible religious "litmus test" in which each candidate professes to be a Christian and shows the world outward signs of his/her Christian faith by being seen praying, going to church, quoting the Bible, etc. Just think of the smear campaign going on against Barack Obama now, in which conseratives claim that he is really a Muslim. He is not a Muslim, but so what if he is? It should not matter, but it does. (I am just waiting for John McCain or one of his surrogates to call Obama, "Iraq Osama" or some variant of that; he has already been called "Osama" by some conservative pundits, supposedly by accident.)
11. Before the United States became an international superpower, a political candidates religious belief system, or lack thereof, was apparently not an issue. George Washington disliked going to church, and when he did, routinely walked out before the service was finished. One may infer from that, that he did not agree with whatever was going on in the churches of the time. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, that is, he believed in some sort of a supreme being, but he was not a Christian, and he insisted on the separation of church and state, and the freedom of each individual to be a spiritual "free-thinker" and to believe according to one's own conscience and reason. Abraham Lincoln never belonged to any church, and stated that, as time goes on, he became more and more skeptical of the idea that following any church's teachings is the way to get to heaven. (By the way, Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain were two other brilliant and famous Americans, who helped to shape our nation, who were spiritual free-thinkers.)
The point of all this, is that evangelical Christians, in particular, have engaged in revisionist history, in an attempt to justify their own political positions, positions which support the military-industrial-religious-political complex. The truth is that there was no such military-industrial-religious-political complex before Reagan and his cronies came along and threw away the constraints on industry, the military, and religion, which had served our nation so well since its inception, but now, the military-industrial-religious-political complex is a potent force which citizens of the United States, and people all over the world, need to find a way to bring to an end.
May 27
Last Friday, it was raining when I went home from school, so I turned on the lights. Since it was still daytime, it was not obvious that the lights were on when I got home. Thus I forgot that they were on, and did not turn them off. Saturday, when I tried to start the car, of course, it would not start. I asked my neighbor Ben for help and we maganed to recharge my battery using a combination of my jumper cables with his. (It was too far to his car to reach with one set of jumper cables.) Sunday, Eunice and I went to a local lake, Silverwood Lake. When we got to the parking lot, a young man asked me if I had jumper cables. I gladly lent mine to him, and he used them to recharge his jet ski. Talk about Kharma! Meanwhile, one of my cats, Kona, seems to be having trouble urinating, which is common with older male cats. Actually, my neighbor Ben is very fond of Kona and feeds him and helps take care of him, so I talked to Ben about the situation. Ben agreed to take Kona to his favorite veteranarian. Cats with this problem usually need special food and maybe some pills. Thanks, Ben. What a neighbor! I wonder if that means I will have to take someone to the doctor in the near future. I know that I do have to take Eunice to jury duty today. It does not start until 1:15 in the afternoon, though. Hopefully, it is only today, especially since someone else may need to drive her home. (I have to go to class.)
We People Versus Me People Part 5: Do Liberals Make Better Lovers?
Divorce statistics around the United States reveal a very interesting trend. The 15 states with the highest divorce rates are all so-called "red states," that is, Republican-dominated states. On the other hand, ten of the 12 states with the lowest divorce rates are so-called "blue states," states dominated by Democrats. In fact, the state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts, which is known as perhaps the most liberal of all states. Some pundits have made the mistake of assuming that means that Republicans have a higher divorce rate than Democrats. Actually, there are many Republicans in "blue states," and many Democrats in "red states," and since these statistics do not list the political affiliation of those who got divorced, one cannot say for sure that Republicans have a higher divorce rate. However, these statistics are very suggestive of that. On the other hand, I found another website, run by a conservative religious group, which did a survey of several thousand people around the U.S. which found that the liberals they sampled, had a higher divorce rate than conservatives. However, there sample had far more self-described conservatives and moderates, than liberals. There were 400+ liberals in their sample, but around 1000 or so conservatives and another 1000 or so moderates. This seems like a case of self-selection going on in this study. Progressives who get a phone call or questionnaire from what is clearly a conservative, religious group, will probably be disinclined to respond. Those who do respond, may be very unrepresentative of liberals as a whole. Also, conservatives get married at higher rates than liberals, further "muddying the waters." Thus, the situation regarding the relationship of divorce to political affiliation remains rather muddled. In order to remedy this situation, one needs divorce data which actually lists the political affiliations of the divorced individuals. What is crystal clear, though is that divorce rates are higher in states where the percentage of Repubicans are higher.
However, divorce rates are a different issue from the issue of how good a person is as a spouse. People who have strong moral objections to divorce, primarily religious conservatives, may be more apt to stay in poor marriages. Also, a person's world view may shape his or her conception of the opposite gender and gender relations. Even more importantly, worldview may influence a person's psychology and ability to relate to the opposite gender. My first contention is that conservatives tend to have a more gender-stereotyped worldview. I belived there is ample empirical evidence for this, although I do not have it at my fingertips. Several psychological theories postulate that having strong, traditional gender roles is unhealthy psychologically. Erik Erikson's theory says that traditional femininity results in women having not having identities of their own, rather, their identities are dependent upon those of their husbands. Thus, it is difficult for a traditional woman to grow as a person and go through healthy adult personality development. Essentially, this is an arguement in favor of 'women's lib" form a psychological standpont. Also, traditional women are at great risk of becoming a borderline personality, which is basically an overly dependent, stalker type. The second theory is Carl Jung's, which postulates that healthy personality development depends on developing a balance between one's psychological masculine side and one's psychological feminine side. This refers to balancing stereotypical characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity. The third theory is similar to Jung's, but goes further. Sandra Bem's theory of psychological androgyny postulates that there are certain positive traits associated with masculinity and others associated with femininity. According to Bem, the healthiest individuals, from a psychological standpoint, have a combination of positive masculine and feminine traits, a condition known as psychological androgyny. The more positive traits, the better. Thus, individuals who for example can be sensitive, empathetic, and nurturing, as well as good decison makers, assertive, and autonomous with a positive identity, whether male or female, are very pyschologically healthy. Empirical evidence supports the idea that people, both male and female, become more androgynous as they grow older. Also, evidence supports the idea that psychologcal androgyny is mentally healthy. Thus, people tend to become more psychologically healthy in this way as they age. More to the point, progressives, who tend to have less rigidly stereotyped views of gender roles, should also be more psychologically healthy.
My second contention is that liberals are better at relating to their spouses than are conservatives, and thus, should make better spouses. Because they tend to be less gender-stereotyped in their attitudes, this follows from the first contention. Those who are more psychologically androgynous, that is, more versatile in terms of their behavior, and less bound by strict gender roles, should be more similar to their spouses, more empathetic toward their spouses, and better able to understand their spouses than their gender-role bound counterparts. This is true for both genders, but even more so for men, because psychologically androgynous men are more able to show empathy, a stereotypically feminine trait, and the most important component of mutual understanding. Futhermore, traditional gender-role bound men, tend to take a dim view of women, as simply helpmates to their far more important and superior husbands -- little people to be kept "barefoot and pregnant," to bear and raise children for them. They may also view women as "sex-objects," which may lead to sexual activities outside of marriage, sexual harassment, or even sexual abuse. Liberal men, on the other hand, "liberate" women, empowering them, and truely loving them for who they are, and not what women can do for them.
May 25
Yesterday afternoon turned out to be one of "Eunice's Labor Camp Days." We were moving various pet houses, kitty condos, tables, large potted plants, a metal and wood tool holding contraption, a heavy, beauty shop sink and so forth. Whatever was too heavy for Eunice, she asked me to carry; if it was too heavy for me, we both carried it together. It was not raining yesterday, but it was cool and cloudy. I gather that the storm had moved northward and was causing snow to fall in the Sierra mountains. Anyway, the purpose of all this movement is to get our larger potted plants all in the greenhouse we had built. Then, Eunice plans to hire Reyna to make a drip irrigation system for them.
We People Versus Me People Part 4: Revolting Politics
As mentioned yesterday, when I was a child, we in California had this phony-baloney, actor governor who hated trees, loved big business, and was basically no good, in my opinion. He went on to become a phony-baloney president when I was 21 years old and voting in my first presidential election for Jimmy Carter, who lost and became perhaps the best ex-president this nation has ever had. The thing that made me really suspicious was when the hostages were released from Iran as soon as Reagan became president. Obviously, Reagan's team had made some sort of hypocritical, nefarious deal with those terrorists they claimed they never dealt with, in order to help their side win the election; as long as Carter was in office, he would be saddled with the hostage situation, dragging down his presidency. Six minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president, the Iranians kept their end of the bargain, and released the hostages. This would be my first clue that somethng was seriously wrong with the way politics works in the United States, and in particular, the way that Republicans will do anything to foist their way into power. I find it strange that there was not more public outrage over the matter. I guess those who voted for Reagan, wanted to count it as some sort of diplomatic coup for him, while those who had not, for the most part, were too preoccupied with Reagan's ascendency or too new to the process and inhibited, as I was. Of course, another coup of even greater proportions, which has received more attention, is that of George W. Bush's ascendency to the presidency in 2000. But there was another coup, here in California, which resulted in us getting another actor as governor. When Grey Davis was governor, around the beginning of his second term which started in 2003, conservatives managed to blame him for everything that was going wrong in our state. A plethora of conservative pundits got on the airwaves, and somehow managed to link Davis to the ripping off of California by Bush's buddies at Enron. They also blamed Davis for being controlled by lobbyists, and for California's entire budget deficit. The whole affair gave me mental nausea, if you know what I mean, the same sort of nausea that I get when I hear George W. Bush speak. Subsequently, a recall election was held in which Davis was recalled, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar took his place. Then there is the matter of teh 2002 gubernatorial election in Alabama, when in the middle of the night, a large number of (statistically impossible) Republican votes suddenly appeared to erase Democrat Don Siegelman's lead, and make his Republican opponent the winner. Is it any wonder by now that I find the actions of the Republican Party revolting? I bellieve that, over time, more and more of the electorate are joining me in this disdain over such political maneuvers. Sooner or later, if these Republican tactics continue, I predict that there will be a sort of populist revolt, a peaceful, protesting populist revolt which takes place in public venues as well as at the ballot box. It may be argued that this quiet revolution, in fact, has already begun. The public is tired of being treated like serfs and peons (or is it pee-ons?) to the ruling Republican feudal lords. Technology may march on, but economically, wealthy Republicans have been recreating essentially a feudal system once again here in the United States, largely undoing centuries of social and economic progress. The good news is that we, as in the "we people," the ones who place the highest priority on the public good, can retake our society from the "me people," the ones who place their own personal gain above anything else. We have a voice and have a vote. That is something even the "me people" cannot take away.
At one time, Ronald Reagan was a "we person," a flaming liberal. I have heard a tape, on the Thom Hartmann show, of Ronald Reagan in his liberal days, entreating the public to vote for union friendly, anticorporatist candidates in the election. Not long after that, he met Nancy Davis (ironically the same last name as California's former Democratic governor), and her ultraconservative, rich father, and began working as a radio announcer for the corporate media. (I believe he was working for GE.) Somewhere in the process, he sold his soul to the conservative movement, and found a way to become a governor, with the help of big money, and eventually, the president who began all the current trouble the United States now finds itself in. Ronald Reagan really wasn't that different from George W. Bush; we have merely gone farther down that road which he set our nation upon. Now, we find ourselves at an intersection; we may continue down that same road, or turn left and climb back up the hill of progress.
May 24
We have been having interesting weather in this area. Two days ago, there were two tornadoes nearby in unpopulated areas near the 215 freeway, along with torential rains and flooding here in Moreno Valley as well as in Orange County. When I went to school Thurday evening, it looked as though it had been snowing there, although actually, it was about 2-3 inches of hail that was on the ground, not snow. Meanwhile, it has been snowing up at Big Bear Lake again, all the way down to lake level. There has been a huge cut-off low pressure system covering the entire Western United States these past few days. The forecast calls for continued downpours from time to time. today and tomorrow. This is good news for the water supply. We really need the water, as last year was the dryest in Southern California in recorded history. Two years prior to that, was the wettest in the region since mount Krakatoa in Indonesia collapsed, altering the weather worldwide that year. Also, we have had the coldest period as well as the warmest period in the recorded ihstory of this region in recent years. I can't help but wonder whether or not these recent turnabouts in weather are a result of global warming -- perhaps, but that is a difficult thing to prove. One thing is for sure; we never used to have tornadoes here in Southern California.
We People Versus Me People Part 3: When the Trouble All Started
When I was in graduate school, I wrote a paper about how personality theories are influenced by their authors' personal experiences. I got an "A" on that paper. I had really found something important. I suspect the same is true of historians, even more so, in fact, since history is not bound by scientific methods to help give it objectivity. Nonetheless, I believe that my version of history as I understand it is accurate, as accurate as I can make it.
There are certain events in people's lives which shape their futures -- perhaps some life circumstance, perhaps a tragic experience, perhaps a fleeting memory of some brief event, perhaps something that was said, or even an impression of somebody, good or bad. I had one of those experiences when I was a child that was based on something that was said, and a bad impression, and it was the first sign of my future political inclinations. We had this yucky governor here in California when I was a child. I remember he said, "when you've seen one tree, you've seen them all" in reference to the redwood trees. He would just as soon cut them all down if there were a profit to be made. I also found out that this phony baloney governor was a former (?) actor named Ronald Reagan (or was it Ronny Ray-Gun?) That was my introduction to the revolting world of modern American politics. Apparently, if someone was well known enough, could say a few funny lines (funny, at least, to those with warped minds), and appeal to people's more selfish, baser tendencies, he could be elected governor. As I found out later, he could also be elected president, much to my revulsion. Even worse, my parents were Republicans who almost certainly voted for him. As for me, I am proud to say that Ronald Reagan was the first president I did not vote for. He certainly was not the last, though. Since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, we have suffered under Republican presidents for 20 out of 28 years. Even Clinton, the lone Democratic president since that time, was frequently embattled and had to deal with a Republican dominated Congress throughout most of his presidency, which made many of his policies more Republican-friendly, and business-friendly, than they might have been otherwise. This road we started on as a nation in 1980 has led us to this point in history, where the contrast between conservatives and progressives is more stark than ever, and where the effects of the Reagan administration's corporatist and morally misguided policies are finally being realized. To quote Jeremiah Wright "the chickens are coming home to roost." I don't know what the origin of that saying is, but I know what it means. Eventually, the effects of one's actions will become evident. This is something that I truly believe in. History may take detours, ones which may kill many people, waste people's lives, or last generations, while those who know there is a better way patiently wait. Those who are impatient with the slow pace of change, may start wars, or revolts, but in all likelihood, only make things worse by doing so. Thus, we need to have patience, and wait for people to see those roosting chickens so that they we may all finally realize a better way of organizing society, a better way of life. That is what I tell myself.
I see such an awakening now in the American people, but I do not know how it will play out. I see people sick of Republican rule, but they still might find a way to win the election. Lord knows they try every trick in the book to dupe as many people as they can into voting for their candidate, and if that fails, I believe they are not above cheating. Take a close look at all the suspicious circumstance of the past two presidential elections. Look at how exit polling, which used to be extremely accurate, now sees more people saying they voted for the Democrat than what the official tallies indicate. Look at how privately owned computerized voting machines suddenly find large numbers of Republican votes. I smell a rat named Rove here. Nonetheless, I see people starting to become wise to Republican tactics. At least it seems that way to me. I see people ready for a non-white or a woman president. I see our nation's demographics shifting toward minority groups which are more progressive leaning. I see our nation's center shifting slowly but surely from some sort of leaning tower of conservatism which had been leaning so far to the right that it risks toppling over, to a straighter, more balanced, upright position. However, if John McCain becomes our next president, I am afraid that the United States may indeed topple over, metaphorically speaking, and need a great deal of effort to make upright again. Just remember, the trouble all started wih a guy name Ronald Reagan who didn't like redwood trees. I love redwood trees. My wife, Eunice, stepdaughter, Isabella, and I even hugged one. At least we tried to, but it was too big. The date was Labor Day, September 3, 2001.
I will have more on the revolting world of American politics, and Reagan's role in it, in my next post.
May 21
We People Versus Me People Part 2: Corporatism Versus the World
In my opinion, one of the best laws ever passed in the United States of America is the Sherman Antitrust Act. This law, as I undertstand it, is intended to prevent monopolies from forming in business by breaking up any corporation that becomes so large that it threatens to develop a monopolistic stranglehold over the market for some product. Unfortunately, when Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, one of the first things he did was to suspend the enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Ever since that time, it has not been enforced, and corporatism in America has run wild. Additionally, during the Reagan adminsitration, the fairness doctrine in news was repealed, so that news organizations were no longer obligated to report news objectively. News, in fact, became a for-profit part of the entertainment division of the corporations which owned the news organizations. Meanwhile, corporations were busy gobbling each other up and consolidating, so that by now, the large majority of the so-called news that Americans are exposed to is owned by, as I recall, 7 corporations, creating what Thom Hartmann calls the "corporate media." (By the way, I owe a big thanks to Thom Hartmann for all of this information.)
I wasn't going to write about this topic today, but a while ago I heard something very relevant and of great concern on the Thom Hartmann show. It seems that 3 days ago, Barack Obama said the right but premature thing, when he stated that he plans to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act and break up large corporations, including the corporate media. That is a great populist message, but the problem is, the only way that people would hear this message, for the most part, would be through and with the cooperation of the corporate media itself. Clearly, the corporate media is disinclined to cooperate in disseminating this message. Basically, Reagan and his cronies created a monster. Now, Obama is at risk of having the same thing happen to him, that happened to John Edwards due to his anticorporatism, which was the same thing that happened to Howard Dean in 2004 after he told Chris Matthews on NBC that he intended to break up the corporate media. As soon as the candidate (Edwards or Dean) stated an intention to break up the media corporations, the candidate was marginalized by the media, painted as some sort of crackpot, and labelled "unelectable." Now, there is some evidence that the same is happening to Barack Obama. For example, he is now being called "exotic" in a number of political television shows, and his liberal voting record is being given greater emphasis than before. One major difference between Obama's case and that of Dean or Edwards, is that Obama is much farther along in the process of campaigning than were those other two candidates. With Edwards or Dean, their campaigns could be derailed by fooling the public into thinking that these were not viable candidates, so that neither would ever come close to being nominated as the presidential candidate by the Democratic Party. In Obama's case, he nearly has the Democratic Party's nomination as their presidential candidate "sewn up." Also, a great many people have already voted for Obama in primaries, and are likely to do so again in the actual election, whatever happens between now and then. Remember that in psychology, it is a truism that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Thus, the role of the media in selfishly preserving their own profits and jobs, counter to the interests of the public, would be essentially promoting John McCain's candidacy for the presidency. Frankly, I find it hard to see a great many people other than faithful lifelong conservatives, the same approximately 25% of the voting population who still support the Bush administration, voting for McCain, however the media depicts Obama. After George W. Bush, and considering the hard right turn that McCain has taken and consequent similarity between McCain's and Bush's positions on the issues, it will be hard for the media to sell McCain's candidacy. In fact, I doubt the majority of workers in the news industry will vote for McCain, even if it does mean regulating the media once again, so I do not think their hearts will be into libelling Obama. Even if the news media does smear Obama in an attempt to prevent him from becoming president, the public will probably be more wise to these tactics than they had been before, at least, I am hopeful of that. In that case, such a tactic by the news media could very well backfire, creating sympathy for Obama and actually helping his candidacy.
What should Obama have done? In my opinion, he should have waited until becoming president before bringing up the topic of regulating corporations, then commence with the re-enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In that case, he would have at least 4 years, and more likely 8 years, to break up bloated, greedy corporations which work against the interest of the public. What should Obama do now? He should remain relatively quiet about this topic, but if it comes up, speak honestly and explain his reasons for re-enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act. If necessary, he should point out to public, with appropriate anger, the media's nefarious tactics.
In a previous post, I complained about the greedy and unfair tactics of General Electric. As it turns out, GE owns NBC and MSNBC, along with a number of other news outlets. Essentially, this pits GE and other large corporations like it, against the world, that is, against the public interests of anyone not in their employ. Corporatism is not only an American problem. It is an international problem. It is a worldwide problem. Corporations have gone global, and found favorable conditions in most parts of the world. Basically, corporations have run wild and gotten "too big for their own britches." I do not mean to say that corporations are inherently bad. Corporations can, in fact, do much good. It all depends on the corporation, However, when a corporation grows too large, it inhibits competition and fairness in the economic realm, it works against the interest of the public, it forms a monopoly over valuable or even necessary resources, it gains political and social power through the use of money for advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions, and it needs to be stopped. That is why we badly need to re-enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act in the United States and enact or enforce similar laws around the world.
May 17
I have been preoccupied the last two days with school and setting up an account on MySpace. I hope it will lead more people to my sites. I will begin a new theme starting today, a political one which I will call "We People Versus Me People."
We People Versus Me People Part 1: Barack Obama Rocks! (But Why do we Think so?)
Barack Obama's political rise is the most phenomenal story in politics to this point in my life. Even before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, the media were labeling him as a "rock star" of politics. To me, that indicates that he was expected to be someone who was well-liked, but not to be taken very seriously. That is not surprising the way the media work these days -- largely Republican-owned infotainment enterprises. However, events since Barack Obama announced his candidacy have conspired to prove otherwise. Indeed, Barack Obama may be the most serious politician of this generation. He has "charisma, brilliance, substance" we are now told. He tries to stick to issues, and stay above the politics of personal attacks.
All of these are good qualities, and I am indeed a supporter of Obama's candidacy. But as a Social Psychologist, I am compelled to ask myself, why has Barack Obama succeeded where so many other candidates with perhaps eqaully good qualities have failed. It seems to me that a variety of factors for which Obama cannot take the credit have helped him immensely. Yes, I think that he has been astute enough to recognize that circumstances are favoring him, and that "his time has come" so to speak. However, his story is definitely one of the right person in the right place at the right time.
First, let me look at his opposition to the "Iraq War" (really an occupation) or the occupation of Afghanistan, for that matter. Obama was not the only candidate to oppose the invasion of Iraq, but there were not many. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul, I believe all opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. However, these three were never given the attention by the media that Obama got. Whether he was viewed as a curiosity, an expected "flash-in-the-pan," or a serious candidate, Obama's speeches and moves were given close scrutiny from the beginning. Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul were treated more-or-less as eccentric and strange, rather than serious candidates. Actually, they were the "truth tellers" of the campaign, the people who talked straight about America's faults, and decried the power of the corporate media and corporatism in general. Unfortunately, America's voters do not tolerate criticism well, even honest and valid criticism, and even worse, the corporate media cuts off access to anyone who criticizes it. Obama, meanwhile, is a sort of truth teller, but tends to speak in glittering and lovely-sounding generalities which usually do not threaten or offend the listener in any way. He speaks enough of the truth to inspire well-informed voters, but is careful to avoid being too outspoken and getting into trouble with the public or media. Meanwhile, even relatively uninformed voters tend to find his high-minded messages inspirational. The main point here about the Iraq occupation is that it gave those candidates who opposed it from the beginning a great advantage, especially among democrats, and of those 4 candidates, Obama received the greatest attentionby the media from the beginning.
Two other candidates we need to look at are John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. Both of them were senate members who voted to sanction the invasion of Iraq. This creates a major negative in the minds of many voters, especially on the Democratic side. This perception of approving the Bush Administration's plans can be difficult to overcome, but not impossible. Edwards apologised for his vote on Iraq, and said it was a mistake; however, Hillary has never really apologised for the vote or called it a mistake. Edwards had a populist and progressive platform which appealed to many well-informed voters, but his candidacy never really gained momentum. Personally, I preferred Edwards myself, based on his stands on the issues. Why didn't he fare better at the ballot box? One reason was his anticorporatism; thus, the corporate media chose to more or less ignore him along with the Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. Another reason was that he is still remembered as an unsuccessful vice presidential candidate. Many voters wanted someone new and different, and he was just good old John Edwards. Thirdly, I believe his demographic characteristics hurt him. Many voters also wanted a minority candidate or a women. That prospect was, and is, much more exciting to most democratic voters, at least. Even white male voters seem ready to see someone other than a white male in the "White House" for the most part. As far as Hillary is concerned, her major advantage is that voters are familiar with her, but as it turns out, that is not enough. Those who do vote for her are primarily white women voters and less educated, most likely poorly informed voters. Her familiarity also comes with some serious disadvantages. Many people have never really cared for her, even when she was first lady. Also, the idea of electing the wife of a former president to be the first woman president seems strange, "third world" and rather offensive to many. (Doesn't the constitution ban that? I guess not; the president we have now is the namesake son of a former president, but he certainly hasn't turned out well.) Hillary's perceived disingenuousness, huge, calculating ambition, and less-than-charming personalitiy all work against her, as well, despite her great intelligence.
The other issue which works for Obama, at least with democratic voters, is his background. As I mentioned previously, most voters seem ready, even eager, for something different, someone who is not a white male in the "White House." Obama fills that bill nicely. He looks more-or-less "Black" to the public, but we are aware of his biracial backgound. White voters know that his mother was a white woman, and that he was basically raised by white people, and an indonesian step-father. In that sense, he feels somewhat like "one of us" to white folks. Meanwhile, his father is an African, from Kenya. There is still much subtle racism in the U.S. and I think that it is mostly directed by whites toward African-Americans, rather than toward actual Africans. Thus, I feel that many white voters find a person of Obama's background be a more acceptable candidate than an African-American descendant of slaves.
The race issue works against as well as for Obama. The race issue will surely be a factor in the upcoming election. It has already been an issue in the form of "guilt by association" in which Obama was linked to Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, and Wright's controversial statements during certain sermons. If everything a white pastor of a white candidate were to receive such scrutiny, there would be no end to this "guilt by association" charade. I think as time goes by, the "Wright" issue will fade. but other forms of subtle racism, and not-so-subtle racism, are likely to be brought up by Obama's opponents. .
I hope and pray that the race issue will not hurt Obama's candidacy. I am proud to envision him as our next president. one with the potential to be a great president, one who could help give this nation a much needed new start, and much needed change in direction.