Let's celebrate our differences

I found two different definitions of the word, argument.  1) a reason put forward in support of or in opposition to a point of view or 2) a disagreement in which different views are expressed, often angrily.  Sadly the latter is operative today in America.  Why is this so sad?  First, a personal belief; unnecessary conflict is a waste of energy.  Second, it’s such a waste of talent too.  And if there has every been a need for every bit of energy and talent we can muster up, it’s today.

Here’s a question for you.  What could happen if we focused our finest minds on solving our nagging economic problems and not just posturing to please a constituency.  Think about how we could truly earn the rank of exceptionalism we aspire to if we focused our talent on our internal problems.

Instead, we celebrate our differences in an orgy of hate, lies, disinformation, accusations, petty-fogging, character assassinations, etc.  This wouldn’t be so sad if we didn’t have the talent, resources, creativity, and wherewithal to do better.  But we do.  It’s boils down to a matter of priorities.  And during this past election campaign we heard more about how the two candidates were inferior to each other and very little about substantive ideas for the future of America.

I will never be convinced that we need to raise taxes on anyone – rich or poor.  The government has enough money.  What they don’t seem to have is the political will to redirect our tremendous resources to the correct issues.  They seem to be willing to let the inefficiencies, waste and fraud continue. 

This is not to say that there aren’t severe economic structural issues.  Many of the unemployed don’t have marketable skills in an technology-based workplace.  We have been eliminating jobs by improving productivity for the last three decades.  That doesn’t need to be all bad for workers or all good for corporations.  One doesn’t need to win at the expense of the other.

The problem seems to be our inability to hear the other side of the issues.  On the hard right we have the Ayn Rand idea of a utopian society – radical individualism.  Taken to its natural conclusion, very few people will own all the assets.  Then what?

On the other hand we have radical collectivism.  Taken to its natural conclusion, “the people” will own all the means of production.  And we know how that turned out in the Soviet Union.

But imagine the brightest minds in America working together to find solutions rather than playing zero-sum games at each other’s and our expense.  Corporations have the right to their profits.  Shareholders have the right to their dividends.  Workers have the right to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and a share of their productivity gains.  What’s so difficult about these concepts?

The difficulty seems to be greed.  Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest people are contributing enormous amounts of money to get or keep their man in office?   This should give you pause to think:  Sheldon Adelson, the multi-billionaire committed $100 million to Romney’s campaign.  If Mr. Romney would have been elected and his tax plans put into place, Mr. Adelson would have received an $11.1 billion tax cut.  That’s an 11,000 percent return on his money.

Sounds like an easy decision to me, based on our current capitalist narrative that “there is never enough.”  But if we cannot see that the natural conclusion of this narrative is complete destruction of our planet, our way of life and our humanity, we are truly lost.

This is not a political issue.  It is an issue of sustainability that has been disguised as partisan by people whose fortunes benefit from this mischief.

In the meantime our country is wounded by the split down the middle while the answers lie in that chasm that divides us.

Robert DeFilippis