As Jay Ambrose stated in a Guest Editorial (“Home of the free, the brave, the endangered,” Napa Valley Register, March 12, 2012), major change can result from small, barely noticeable changes. It’s the frog in the pot syndrome, and we are seeing this in all sorts of things, from atmospheric changes fueled by industrialization and fossil fuel consumption which are having a decided effect on our climate; to government intrusions into private lives which then compromise our freedom; to nations turning to authoritarian leadership for security. My worry, as is Ambrose’s, is here in America. I am concerned, but for entirely different reasons than he is.
Ambrose is “scared”, he states, because we are approaching the “tipping point” on many issues, although he gives little substantial information about the issues, and I suspect his claim of being “scared” is more of that conservative tactic used to foment fear in the audience. Because if the audience is made to feel fear, they can then be offered a dominant, authoritarian leader who promises to make decisions for them and protect them from harm.
For instance, he refers to “debt grown obese”. Certainly the debt--after the post-WWII decline—has grown, starting in the 80s, declining somewhat in the 90s, and leaping to 70% of GDP by 2008. I’m sensing he’s trying to criticize the Obama Administration for increasing the debt further in the service of recovery: successfully turning around unemployment and getting the market back on its feet after it tripped up so badly. I wonder if he knows that the budget proposals of Gingrich, Santorum and Romney would result in higher debt in ten years than does Obama’s 2013 proposal.
Ambrose also cites “liberty grown skinny”. It’s not clear what he means by that. Guns haven’t been taken away or even effectively regulated; we still have free speech, as evidenced by right-wing talk radio hosts; and our taxes have gone down. He couldn’t be referring to the Blunt-Rubio bill, because thankfully it didn’t pass. If it had, we would have had a Republican-sponsored law that would allow employers to decide what was covered in our health insurance policies, based on what they might deem morally objectionable. And we can still vote, in spite of efforts by Republicans at the state level to prevent certain classes of voters from going to the polls, so we still have democracy (except in cities where Republican state Governors have decided to replace the duly elected city government with “emergency managers”).
Ambrose is also scared because of “children with scarcely a chance in this world because their single-parent homes did not give them one.” I think he must mean children who are born into poverty and into homes where the parents are either too busy working or don’t know how to give their children a chance under the circumstances. He may have been confusing “debt” with “children”, because the rate of obesity in children is actually pretty scary. And parents who don’t have much money and don’t have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and then lack adequate pre-natal health care and access to healthy nutrition, are much more likely to see lack of motivation, cognitive deficits, and poor achievement in their children. I wonder if he knows that the Republican proposals to do away with health care reform and block the provision of contraceptives and women’s health care is one of the most egregious assaults on our freedoms that we have seen since the Patriot Act. And who saw it coming?
Does he know about the growing income disparity which squeezes poor and middle-class families facing inflation and has made it difficult for all but the wealthy, who qualify for substantial tax breaks, to provide adequately for their families and ensure good education? I suppose Ambrose is aware that Romney’s tax proposal would give huge tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting Medicaid, the bulk of which goes to children, the disabled and the elderly. Does he also know that the taxpayers are paying the medical bills of one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit to overturn Obamacare?
Does he know about the growing income disparity which squeezes poor and middle-class families facing inflation and has made it difficult for all but the wealthy, who qualify for substantial tax breaks, to provide adequately for their families and ensure good education? I suppose Ambrose is aware that Romney’s tax proposal would give huge tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting Medicaid, the bulk of which goes to children, the disabled and the elderly. Does he also know that the taxpayers are paying the medical bills of one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit to overturn Obamacare?
Ambrose is frightened of postmodernism, multiculturalism, group consensus and what he calls “scientism” (which he defines as “science as God”-- I don’t think there is any such thing as “science as God”, except in the minds of conservatives, who discard sound science when it conflicts with their religious ideas or their political ideology.)
The concepts he rakes over his coals of judgment aren’t particularly scary. Postmodernism has encouraged us to look at how we come to know reality through our culture, language, religion, power structure, and motivations, and has the potential of fostering critical thinking and a more universal code of ethics than the various codes adopted under threat of punishment by an authoritarian “God”. Multiculturalism is inevitable as various factions of our global community intermingle regularly. Understanding and appreciating one's culture of origin does not have to depreciate another’s. Group consensus weaves personal involvement and reasoned dialogue into our democratic process and contributes to prudent global economics, resource management and development.
Those trends so feared by Ambrose--rather than reducing whatever vestige of “exceptionalism” we have left after economic collapse, political buffoonery and botched attempts at world dominance--all seem to be natural outgrowths of the Enlightenment that informed our founders.
The real concerns—I won’t say scary, because that compels a fight or flight reaction and concern calls for solutions—have to do with the permeation of public policy by cognitive distortion and moralistic authoritarianism. The religious right has encircled us and appears to be closing in, gnashing teeth through cries of “freedom”, and "take back the country". At risk are the freedoms and protections we have earned, as women, minorities, immigrants, voters and workers. We can no longer stay passive and silent in the heated waves of disinformation created by the incendiary rhetoric of would-be plutocrats and theocrats. Whenever we hear or see the attacks on hard-won liberties coming from the rapacious right, we need to speak up.
The real concerns—I won’t say scary, because that compels a fight or flight reaction and concern calls for solutions—have to do with the permeation of public policy by cognitive distortion and moralistic authoritarianism. The religious right has encircled us and appears to be closing in, gnashing teeth through cries of “freedom”, and "take back the country". At risk are the freedoms and protections we have earned, as women, minorities, immigrants, voters and workers. We can no longer stay passive and silent in the heated waves of disinformation created by the incendiary rhetoric of would-be plutocrats and theocrats. Whenever we hear or see the attacks on hard-won liberties coming from the rapacious right, we need to speak up.
Repeat: speak up.
And then repeat.
