The View From Here: Security

Let's get right down to brass tacks; security is an illusion.

Let me point out that the purpose of this series is NOT to discuss the fine details of things like "security," in which I give my opinions on things like having to take off your shoes at an airport.  What I'm trying to do here is to take a few very basic things; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom, and security; discuss what they actually are, and give a brief overview of how both the left and the right side of the American political aisle propose to give us those things.

These are basic things that everybody wants, or maybe, should want.  At the same time, the world is full of people who say that war is good for the economy, or that a good, small war is much better than a bad, big war that our side might lose.  There are still people in the world who believe, for whatever reason, that one group of people is inherently better.  And we might be surprised to learn that most of us are in such a group, whether we realize it or not.

Security, what it is, is tied with each of the other four things in such a way that security itself could be called irrelevant.  To be secure, one needs to be: Not involved in conflict, especially if the other party is as strong or stronger than you; prosperous, in possession of sufficient material wealth; equal to everyone else (at least!); and unencumbered, able to move and act without fear.  That is the essence of security; lack of fear.  Security is why we buy insurance, have savings accounts and 401K's, join Triple-A, get married, read how-to books, check our oil, and so forth.  It's why we prefer to buy meat that's been USDA-approved.  Or not eat meat at all!

Security is about managing the future!  It involves steps we take to try and ensure that things will be at least as good as they are now, or will improve.  Every day we don't shove the boss' teeth down his throat insures we have a job tomorrow.  Every time we pass on one more slice of pizza insures that we are taking better care of our health.  Or, we take the slice, because it makes us feel good and temporarily aswages some fear or other.  My belly's full and I can taste mozzerella, so the world is in its orbit and I have nothing to worry about.

Politicians of all stripe use these fears, if not directly against us, surely for their own benefit.  For their own security, in order to keep their jobs, or advance into someone else's.  They tell us that if we follow them we will be at peace, more prosperous, the playing field will be level, and we will be free.  Everybody will win.  Except for the bad people, of course.  After all, if there were no bad people, there'd be no insecurity, right?  That's a necessary part of the formula; the demonization of someone.

This is very easy, really.  Everybody's done something wrong.  As I've pointed out before, I believe that there is a base human nature, and it is skewed to the side considered evil.  Selfish.  Insecure.  Fearful.  A deep psychological need to surround ourselves with safety.  The only thing that overrides this is something even deeper that is built in by the original manufacturer, that can through act of will overcome even this basic automatic default position; love.

Love is what makes a mother step into harm's way in defense of their child.  It's what made people join the Army after 9/11.  It's what makes people take from their paycheck and give to the United Way.  It sometimes gets us sucked into scams, but love tells us that we, the stupid, are less to blame than they, the scammers.  They're the bad guys, we were just trying to help.

"Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."  - I Corinthians, 13:4-7, NIV.

Security is the reason that people give their lives to Jesus Christ.  Or follow the teaching of Buddah, or Mohammed, or Krishna, or whatever.  We're looking for something that can assure our future beyond this life.  We are looking for a working definition of love, so that we can love freely without fear.  Security, and guidance.  We lock these things in along with things, in and out of religious behavior and belief, that assure our security - and comfort - in this life.  It is also the reason we, as Americans and/or other citizens of democratic republics, vote.  And when we get deeper in the knowledge of how our political systems work, either become more involved in them or leave them completely out of frustration.

So, in a couple of nutshells, what the left offers is, under their rule, everybody will be equal under the law and get everything they ever need.  And the right promises that everyone will have an opportunity to better themselves, and nobody will come beat us up and take away our stuff.  Does that sound about right?  And the implication is that voting for the other side will lead to oppression and starvation for people we should care about.  Or, the country will be weak and die.

How these things are all accomplished is, of course, very complicated.  Which side you pick probably depends on where you personally place the most importance.  Democrats are either The Only People Who Care, or a bunch of weak pussies.  Republicans are either The Only Hope For Growth, or a bunch of mean, rotten bastards.  Sometimes, it's put in these terms; If you want a job, vote Republican.  If you want unemployment compensation, vote Democrat.

Now, think about it for a minute; which of those represents security?  If you have a job, what guarantee do you have that you'll get to keep it?  Twenty years ago, Kodak employees thought they had the most secure jobs on the planet.  On the other hand, the Republican devotion to low corporate taxes and no regulation in the 1920's led directly to the Great Depression and 25% unemployment.  As the bumper sticker says; "Keep working; millions on welfare are depending on you."

This is not a series on religion.  If it were, I would go into a long explanation about how giving your life to Jesus Christ will free you from fear, etc. etc. etc.  Instead, it's a series on politics, and why, in spite of everything I know, I regularly vote Republican.  For one thing, you can say what you want about President Obama's economic policies, how many jobs he's created, blah blah blah.  We can sit here and throw statistics back and forth forever and not prove anything.  It comes back to Ronald Reagan's question; Are you better off than you were four years ago?

I haven't been able to find it, but I'll swear I once heard Nancy Pelosi say, after the crash of 2008, that, after 25 years of prosperity, the housing bubble bursting finally proved that Reagan was wrong.  Not that the 25 years of prosperity proved anything, of course.  That sounds similar to a couple friends of mine who love going on about how rotten Conservatives are.  One of them looked me right in the eye one day and insisted that the economy did not improve during the Reagan administration.  At that point, I knew there was no more point in my participating in their discussions.

Both sides need to come together.  And by "both sides," I mean the average voters on both sides.  We need to demand equality under the law, access to everything we need, and opportunity to grow, all at the same time.  Not a liberal utopia, not a conservative utopia, but for the needs of the people to be met.  What we, the people, want is a seat at the table.  Alongside all the rich and powerful people and special interest groups.

Unfortunately, "Occupy Wall Street" has devolved into a series of ever-more-arcane symbolic gestures.  And the wealthy have tried their best to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with varying degrees of success.  I sincerely believe that both of these movements came from the grass roots, and that they both want the same basic thing; a seat at the table.  We have concerns, and we want the government to listen to them and act on them.  We also want to have more power in the decision making process than those who would use these issues for their own gain.

The big corporations, the labor unions, the minorities, all have to be made to understand that we care about them and are their customers.  We want GM to survive and grow, not only because of employment figures, but because we want cars.  We want our neighbors to have it as good as we do, and to have it as good or better ourselves.  Or at least to have the chance, if we have the ambition and cleverness.  And to be able to succeed and grow even if we're not bloodthirsty cutthroats.

I did find one quote by Nancy Pelosi that I did like very much.  I can't find it again, but it said something to the effect that she hopes for a world where an artist or musician can do what they do without having to worry about losing their day job.  Personally, as a musician who's played for the better part of four decades, I don't mind having a day job to support my family.  I was at least wise enough to marry someone who appreciates my art and supports me, as I do her in hers. 

But I know exactly what Ms. Pelosi means, and I think that creativity should be encouraged.  It makes the world better for everyone.  And I'm not just talking about the arts.  The creativity of Karl Benz and Henry Ford led to the automobile industry, for good or ill.  Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.  A republican watching a democrat trying to squelch big business is most puzzled by the latter referring to themself as "progressive."

I look at the two parties and think; which is closer?  This brings me back to another basic belief; that simple works better.  Conservative principles make for simpler governments.  Fewer beurocracies, fewer regulations.  Have you ever been stopped for speeding and thought; "Shouldn't this cop be out busting real criminals?"  Not that I'm against speed limits on our highways, but the point is that law enforcement means all the law.  And the more laws you have, the more law enforcement people you need.  People that could be doing something useful instead.

It's also a basic belief that things that need to be done are almost always better done through the private sector.  For instance, yes, universal health care insurance is a wonderful ideal.  It reminds me of a trip Lynn and I made in '95 to Canada.  We were sitting in the hotel room one evening and got watching a debate by the leaders of the five biggest parties, focussed on their health care system.  Each and every party leader, from the most conservative to the most liberal, promised outright to spend less money on the system than the other.  Let me tell you, if I were sitting in a Montreal emergency room, I would be comforted by the knowledge that I was about to be treated by the lowest bidder.  Yes, that's a gross oversimplification, and I know Canadians who are perfectly happy with their health care system.  But the point stands; I'll bet they'd like our choices better, if they could afford them.  As P. J. O'Rourke once said, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free."

Putting something on the open market inevitably leads to the lowering of price and the raising of capability.  Look at the computer you're reading this on!  Yeah, maybe it's made cheaper, but with the pace of development, you're probably going to replace it in a few years anyway.  And the next one will be cheaper to buy and do more.

I guess the point becomes that the companies making these ever-improving disposable things need to also think about the environment the used-up ones get tossed into.  And so forth.  And that is why regulation is also a good thing.  If everybody has to meet the same criteria, the playing field is more level.  Take all the regulations off car manufacturers and cars would very quickly get cheaper.  They'd also be more dangerous and dirty.  It's a balance between law and liberty.

So, yes, we want big evil fat-cats to continue to provide the things and services we so dearly love.  And, we want them to not take undue advantage of us while providing them.  Sounds simple, but HUMAN NATURE drives them, through insecurity, to squeeze that which needs not be squoze.  We need to push back, on our behalf and on the behalf of those who do not yet have a seat at the table.

It would be possible to just blindly pick one side over the other and let things settle into a semi-comfortable normalcy.  It's what most people seem to be doing.  This whole blog is about breaking away from that.  It is born out of the frustration of hearing slogans thrown around.  It's about trying to be smarter than most politicians think we are.  It's about standing up and asking the questions that they don't want to answer.  It's about looking beyond left and right and getting what we all really want.

I'm going to finish up with a link to a Bruce Cockburn song that's a particular favorite of mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybkiiAKMOY&feature=related

And, another P. J. O'Rourke quote to chew on:  One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license.

Anyway, that's the view from here.  Pax.