An excerpt from a book project I was working on a few years
ago (and am still working on, although not quite so seriously at the moment
because of other obligations):
Those are the fundamental
properties of American “democracy.” All who are citizens of this nation possess
the right, by virtue of citizenship, to oppose elected officials verbally and
politically, to criticize those same officials, often unmercifully and
publicly, to try and influence politicians at all levels with letters, e-mails,
and hired lobbyists, to run for office against incumbents if we desire, and to
vote. We may not accomplish much by doing any of these activities, but at least
we don’t routinely get arrested and/or shot. As of this writing, this type of
“democracy” is not reproducing itself very successfully anywhere in the world.
The Pax Americana is proving itself
to be a weak competitor for the hearts and minds of humans, especially those in
what we call the “developing world.” In fact it is struggling to sustain itself
in its own heartland. In an ideal America, none of these fundamental
properties could be subverted by people participating in the system. The brutal
truth is that anywhere the Republican Party is in power, it is likely to be
working overtime to subvert the system through gerrymandering, intimidation of
appointed officials, making it harder for poor and minorities to vote,
promoting scientific illiteracy, ignoring scientific evidence when it
contradicts ideology, and spying on its own citizens illegally.
In other words, we are evolving
noticeably, if not relatively quickly, toward a totalitarian state, and that
evolution is slowed mainly by some institutions that are constantly under
attack from a variety of directions. Public schools, libraries, universities,
museums, various arts organizations, and the entertainment industry are all
routine targets for conservative elected officials. In some cases these
officials use budgetary power; in others their words are sufficient to
marginalize, if not demonize, a segment of our society. An excellent example of
our cultural evolution is provided by a recent Republican candidate for United
States Senate from Nebraska, Pete Ricketts, heir to the Ameritrade fortune,
much of which he spent on his own campaign. Mr. Ricketts is not particularly
important on global scale; I’m using him as an example because he’s handy,
illustrative, and of a rather common type.
In the spring of 2006, Mr.
Ricketts won the Republican primary election for a candidate to oppose Sen. Ben
Nelson (D); Ricketts’ campaign rhetoric consisted primarily of variations on
the theme of “faith, family, and hard work . . . values taught and shared in my
home.” He swept us in by continuing “Those are my values, our values, Nebraska values that I
will take to Washington.”
Of the five videos you can (or could) access through his web
(www.petericketts.com), one is entitled “Believe” and another is “Mom.” You are
also invited to contribute to the Nebraska Families for Pete Ricketts pool.
That is the extent of the civics discourse contributed by Mr. Ricketts. The
family values candidate also contributed $4.5 million of his own money to this
pool before May 8, 2006.
No journalist ever asked Mr. Ricketts how he
would have handled the low level radioactive waste storage site issue that has
plagued the state like a cancer, how, exactly, he would get us out of Iraq or
Afghanistan, what, exactly, he understood about global climate change, whether
he could even define the terms “demography” or “ethnic diversity,” whether he
ever took a course in a foreign language, what he understood about basic
science and technology, to what extent he understood the arts’ contribution to
our national economy and image, what he knew about the cost of producing
ethanol from corn (as opposed to sugar cane), to what extent drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would or could actually reduce gasoline prices
and guarantee our energy future, and just exactly how he would propose to
handle the health care delivery system problems faced by our nation. Needless
to say, Mr. Ricketts did not offer any answers to any of these questions on his
own.
“Nebraska values” it turns out are
stereotypical neoconservative: anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-evolution,
suspicious, if not outright disdainful, of science in general (but not applied
science producing value-added discoveries involving agricultural products), and
deeply religious, mostly Catholic. Are these “Nebraska values” wrong or dangerous? No,
certainly not as held by free individuals in a truly democratic society.
Whether they are wrong or dangerous, or perhaps more properly completely
inadequate, as a basis for making international decisions in the Third
Millennium, that is an open, and debatable, question.
But the most troubling question
of all is: Are these values, combined with a candidate’s careful failure to
reveal the extent to which he or she understands science and demographics,
unique to Nebraska?
If they are, then nobody should worry, or even care, about Pete Ricketts
assuming an elective position with some power to influence global events. If
they are not, then we have plenty to worry about because science and demography
will be our challenges in the future, the former because it is completely
re-defining what is meant by the term “human being,” the latter because
demographic changes determine the boundary conditions under which this new form
of human evolves.
(John Janovy , Jr.)
No comments:
Post a Comment