"The Power Of Social Pressure" & "Arguing Government" (Essays 47 & 48 From American Myths & Madness) Text Only

Essay Forty-Seven

The Power Of Social Pressure

It's soccer season and suddenly the circle has come round and my wife and I are re-creating our lives from the early 1980's. Instead of three children, it's four grandchildren. But times have changed and where we originally had to scrape and scurry to come up with money to sign them up and buy shin-guards, this year we faced higher sign-up costs, uniform and cleat costs, shin-guards as well as being asked to buy four balls—one for each child—and all mandatory for participation. The total cost approached $400.00 and we haven't paid for pictures yet (or the balls). None of our grandchildren could have participated without our support.

It got me thinking. Last year I was amazed at how many times during the year our grandchildren came home from school saying they had to have two, three or five dollars for this or that. Field trips required a contribution. Class photos and participation in book-buying or candy sales, fund-raisers and pledge drives all required that we pitch in financially. After all, no one wants their child to be the only one in class with no signatures on the pledge form and who doesn't purchase a class picture or individual photo? Of course, I don't want to forget the holidays and events throughout the year--the County Fair, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, birthdays, other kid's birthdays, school plays, costs to attend High School sporting events, etc. etc. For parents, living way below the poverty line, who can't rely on grandparent's support, these costs can be overwhelming. We can provide anecdotal evidence that some families use monies originally earmarked for rent, utilities, clothing or food to cover these costs to protect themselves and their children from embarrassment, ridicule, or denial of participation. I know what many of you are thinking--sticks and stones and all that. Rent comes before food, food before entertainment, and to all these superfluous expenditures one should “just-say-no.” After all, aren't home budgets about deciding on priorities and shouldn't those who are unable to stick to solid economics be deserving of ruin? That's representative of the traditionally conservative economic line most of my generation grew up with; “if you can't afford it-don't spend it!”

While the previously stated point of view was appropriate for my generation, times began changing even as our grandchildren began to grow. We lived significantly below the poverty line until a number of years past the point our children were grown but we almost always paid our bills and managed to provide the basic necessities. While they were growing up our standard of living did not provide for enough income beyond our basic expenses to allow them to participate without depending on the offer of credit. Our children suffered ridicule, embarrassment and taunting because their tennis shoes and clothing didn't come from the right stores. Although we counseled them not to pay attention and quoted platitudes about “money not buying happiness” and “wealth not being an indicator of success”, it was difficult to compete with the endless barrage of consumer exhortations coming from TV and their peers. We were unaware until much later how great an effect those taunts and slights had on their perspective and self-esteem.

The most recent economic calamity is a direct result of the change in the socio-economic paradigm. Where we lived through periods without running water, utilities and sewer, eating rice and beans for dinner, believing that possessions were secondary in importance to cultural enrichment and family—subsequent generations have been educated (by the media) and encouraged by their peers and society around them to participate wholeheartedly in a consumer frenzy. Thirty-something and younger adults grew up with feelings that they were entitled to a standard of living far beyond their means. It was no longer about keeping up with the Jones'” (as it was in our time) but in sharing in the entitlement of the American Dream with the “if you work hard and sacrifice” removed from the equation. After all, they saw it on TV every night-- everyone should have a new car, a new house, new clothes, a new body, the latest toy, a well-paying job, a Super Bowl party, a well-heeled Christmas, store bought Halloween costumes, Easter candy, and all the rest.

Point 1--During most of my life loan sharks were prosecuted for charging greater than 10 percent interest on credit—but today corporate credit organizations can charge 18, 25 even 30 % interest without blinking. Recent health insurance corporation documents show that their industry would like to have 35 cents on the dollar. For many years now, young people have been encouraged to rely on credit if their income was not compatible with their desired standard of living. Many of them simply cannot imagine making do-- they have to have the latest phone or techno gadget to make them feel like they are a part of everything.

Point 2—Despite an older generation's perspective that it's just common sense to stay within your means economically, that comes from a different time. I won't open the discussion of why it was a different time—just emphasize my point of view that social and individual priorities, both nationally and individually have changed. For the sake of argument and this article, let me make that assertion.

My generation was big about not caring what other's thought. We tried, and failed, to engender that belief in our children. The last two generations (except for a few) care very deeply about what others think. In fact, I would go so far to say that with many of them it is of paramount importance that others view them positively. They desperately want to fit in and be viewed as successful. They want, as most people do, to have their children have what others have. And so they constantly over-extend themselves financially to make that happen and are on the brink of economic disaster at every turn. But that's only part of what I am writing about.

Consumerism has indeed created a monster—demanding through seasonal media blitzes that everyone participate in the holidays and events that drive the retail machine. Children have expectations, built by television and movies, that everyone is entitled to a bountiful thanksgiving and a blitz of presents at Christmas and birthdays, candy at Halloween and Easter, participation in sports and events at school, etc. etc. The commonly held belief is that these are choices that people can make—whether or not to participate in these events and holidays relating to their economic level. But many of our young people are no longer setting priorities or making those judgments based on what they can afford. Why? We have simply misunderstood the dynamics of social pressure and peer influence.

Native people have a closer understanding of what has happened. Indigenous peoples seldom codified their lives into laws and ordinances. That doesn't mean we didn't have rules and regulations, values and mores. It simply means we enforced them differently. We used, for the most part, public opinion and social pressures to enforce our precepts and manage our governments. Why was social pressure so effective? Because in Native society people wanted to be a part of the whole. We cared what our neighbors and relatives thought and only occasionally did people stray from the norm. In those cases we didn't ostracize those who sought a different path, we built special roles and recognition for them within our societies—everybody had a value and a place. We understood how important and how powerful social pressure was when people wanted to belong and their self image depended on how they were perceived within the whole.

For reasons I won't go into here, much of the American populace under forty has embraced similar values of caring and wanting to belong and be included. Unfortunately it is not values and culture that is at the center of what they want to belong to and share—it is that specific promise of entitlement to a wealthy standard of living that they have grown up expecting to be a part of. They have grown up feeling assured it is their right to share in the wealth, whether they earn it or not. They rationalize that they must insure their children can participate in every way and their self-esteem is defined by that participation—for themselves and their families. That perception is reinforced by their peers and children's schoolmates in the form of ridicule and ostracism if they don't live up to contemporary standards. Many children blame their parents for not being able to provide what others have and think less of them—diminishing the respect and family bonds that used to buffer families against the inequities of lack of wealth and economic status. They simply must have everything and how they get there, or future consequences, is less important than the momentary feeling of belonging and sharing in the success of the whole. So they overspend at every holiday, birthday and social event and participate in every school function to make sure their child isn't the only one left home during the field trip, or the only one without a signature on the pledge form—even if they have to overdraw their bank account to make it happen. Go ahead and criticize them all you want, but we have a generation or two living like that today.

The power of social pressure and the misinformation that consumerism is the end-all, be-all of the American Dream has co-opted their values. It's more important to fit in, and participate now, than to worry about the consequences tomorrow. So we are enduring the resulting economic crisis—caused by those that encouraged default and those that embraced it. It doesn't do us a whole lot of good to bemoan our circumstances, after all—we all share the responsibility for letting it happen and Native people are suffering the same problems on the wealthier Reservations and Rancherias. The old story about the fiddling grasshopper ignoring the turning of fall and failing to prepare for winter is a perfect allegory to describe our present situation. So many important issues directly related to our future standard of living, even our survival, are ignored in favor of selfish, petty, or philosophical fanaticism and a tendency to ignore the mainstream for the fringe. What can we do? We can talk about openly curtailing our habits and returning to responsible economic practices. We can start by asking government to do less but do more as private citizens and social or spiritual groups to repair the streets or care for our hungry, homeless, sick and deprived. We can limit our consumerism and encourage our children and grandchildren to be satisfied with one present at a birthday rather than purposely inviting ten other poor kids (all expected to bring a present) to the party so afterward we can experience a glut of things so we can feel rich ( and teach our children the wrong lesson). We can emphasize free music, and art, and sport without overhead, pot lucks and dances, poetry and prose events, social bonding and responsibility above buying and selling. If we can do that we'll have a chance—if not we'll have to wait until the standard of living falls so far that the void between those that have and those that don't create the forces that demand change and upheaval. It's not rocket science—it's history and sociology.

But I'm not one to cast the first stone cause I'm just as guilty as the rest. I'm hoping others, more disciplined and capable, will lead the way.

Essay 48

Arguing Government (Before The New Revolutionary War)

I was again feeling overwhelmed with the current political state of the country, and after spending considerable time in more than half the states in the continental U.S. sampling the experiences and character of the many nuances of American culture, I came to a comparison of the labels conservative and liberal.

One of the accepted differences between these ideologies is the Conservative view that taxation, social contracts and networked and hierarchal systems of organized representational government are bad things. It comes down to answering the question of just much freedom and independence a society can have before it descends into anarchy--where government is so small that people must live in locally self-sufficient enclaves without a larger entity keeping the peace. Conservatives speak of small government but have not yet clearly identified just "how small" a government they would prefer. Reducing government, at the level of population we currently have, with huge infrastructure and national functionality depending, in part, on the government holding it all together is problematic. Some think the catch-phrase "small government" is instead a call for the empowerment of individually determined priorities--something that is virtually impossible in light of all the varied interests being represented.

Liberals espouse a position that demands government take on the responsibility of identifying and measuring both community and individual need within a larger whole, and responding energetically, with sympathy and empathy, to that need with organized action; assuming responsibility--in a very tribal way--for the whole people. Taking on this responsibility, at the level of population we have, requires a significant contribution from the populace to act as the funding mechanism. Taxation is only acceptable if the services provided are valued, and appreciated, by the populace. Just as the danger of too small a government is anarchy and loss of freedoms and liberties, the result of too large a government can be tyranny or gridlock, both which result in loss of freedoms and liberties. In the end, the average liberal can't tell you just "how large" a government is large enough and how it is to avoid waste and favoritism within the boundaries of a free market system.

Following the crooked path a step further, it seems appropriate to state that we are not now in an infant state, where we can immediately choose to create a brand new paradigm. Many of our politicians, and much of our populace, embrace a sort of mindlessly vague loyalty to nondescript sound bites that represent their platform or ideology.

Taking the conservative view first, lets sit at the table and ask this question. Do we want the absolute form of social individual freedom- anarchy? If you answered no, then the next question is "what do you want government to do for you? " In the present form of western civilization in its "modern" state, government usually provides for a common defense and a form of law and regulation to protect its populace from goons, thugs and fanatics. If we were to list the services government actually provides localities, we might come to an idea just how deeply we're attached to federal and state dollars; what services they fund or help to fund, and what our society would look like without them.

As an example, I have seen local government websites that inform potential immigrants to expect unpaved or potholed roads, lack of reliable police or fire service and/or long response times, lack of school bus routes, no athletics, art, or music programs in education, no public libraries or pools, unmaintained parks and recreation facilities, etc. These localities practice small government. They don't provide services they can't afford and are content to live with the repercussions of their choice . The true small-government ideology of conservatism without taxes means the elimination of numerous public services and facilities and a need for localities to become locally self-sufficient; something that is unattainable without local unity and organization toward a single purpose. At that point, if embraced by every locality, the US ceases to be. Also at that point, the wealthy have what they want, and all the rest have what they can give or take. No Medicare, no Social Security, no unemployment, no welfare, less fire and police protection, fewer solvent public schools, no central judicial system, greater crime, ultra-expensive utility services, deteriorating infrastructure, increased vigilantism, unregulated drugs and foods, unregulated driving, no public transportation, no care for the needy, and on and on. What we need is for Conservatives to draft a laundry list of the services they consider indispensable and what services will be let go. Remember, we want to decrease central authority which, though bulky, incompetent and expensive, provides the cohesive glue that allows all these services to exist and attempts to regulate them in the public interest. Conservatism in its present form pretends to be part of the greater union, but its new primary directive seems to be a narrow desire to preserve the past and profit individually without financial responsibility for the care or condition of neighbors. I think most reasonable conservatives would agree they prefer some type of central government to coordinate services for so many millions living so immediately adjacent to one another especially after having exhausted much of the natural resources. I don't know what other form of funding state, federal, and local governments have other than taxation or permit fees, etc., but all these services require some level of public financial commitment. The idea that all these services could be provided by private for-profit interests at an affordable level goes against the grain of our recent economic experience and reliance on public generosity has proven unreliable. What services should government provide- what can you live without? How small is small government.

Liberals have their own problems. Large government is, as stated above, largely inefficient, wasteful, often incompetent--even counterproductive. Regulation in a corporate economy can be stifling and it is essential that the economy be good for large government to continue. The "common good" is difficult to serve from a distance. Wherever the central government and its policies affect the freedom of a community to develop self-sufficiency, it has overstepped its bounds. At the point where the populace is unwilling or unable to fund the multitude of special interests that result from having millions of citizens with individual needs and crisis, gridlock results and people are less willing to contribute to the public coffer even to fund services previously considered indispensable.

The problem for Liberals and Conservatives alike is that they have allowed the Horatio Alger myth to become pervasive among the populace. Much of the younger general populace, having been convinced by the entertainment media that "having it all" is a right and not the result of sacrifice and effort, are now too impatient and self-involved to sacrifice the services they have become accustomed to or to contribute a greater portion of their income to fund the services they have become accustomed to. A large portion of the elderly population, divided into the well-to-do and those dependent on government services for survival, are now faced with giving up a greater share of their hard earned wealth or with suffering the loss of services they have come to depend on.

So my first question is, what percentage of our economy comes from Federal or State support? Next we have to determine what services we can live without. The variance in opinions regarding what is an indispensable government service reflect a cross-section of the economic, social, political and spiritual values and views and is a chasm of infinite disagreement. Next question. How will we fund (immediately) the services we want to keep should Federal or State sources cease? We have already begun to face these hard decisions in the recent economic crisis and have yet to come to common agreement about the priority of services we desire.

I think it would be an interesting research project to see: 1) What is the actual money brought into Lake County from Federal and State grants, projects, and programs, and how much of our economy and infrastructure is supported through government funding, activities, offices, etc. 2) Survey 50 local voters respectively from the Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Tea Party on their top twenty indispensable services to be provided by organized local government. 3) Survey, from those same voters what percentage of their income they would voluntarily contribute to provide these shared services within the community.

It seems to me that would give us a pretty good idea of what we need and what people would be willing to pay. I fear that the answer would not be what we would prefer. The distance between those who profess a real desire for the entire populace to share equity in the resources of the nation, including defining what responsibilities each neighbor has for the welfare of the next is at the heart of this debate. If you don't feel a responsibility to share your individual economy in insuring that all people have shelter, food, water, utilities, medical service, police protection or education then your choice is indeed simple. I take mine, you take yours.

For those who profess a desire to assume that responsibility, the problem is thornier. Services offered can only be determined by the percentages of our individual wealth that we are willing to contribute to a central treasury to see that those services, protections, safeguards and benefits are administered, protected, dispersed and utilized as equitably and efficiently as possible. Whatever we are unwilling to fund through our own contributions must fall by the wayside. We cannot provide resources for all our population at the current level of consumption indefinitely. We cannot all be millionaires. We must come to agreement on what basic levels of services and benefits we can live with, and/or whether society can survive in a fractured and self-centered environment that decides it is not responsible for the basic necessities of its people.

When you take a position remember that, as the three percent of the earth's population that uses ninety-seven percent of the earths resources, we will come to a point where we cannot continue our standard of living without commitment to infrastructure redevelopment, higher standards of educational preparation, and commitment to green and energy efficient technologies. Also remember that the three percent of our wealthiest citizens that hold ninety-seven percent of the Nation's wealth have little or no real interest or stake in these decisions and the outcome. These "world" citizens will just pick up their marbles and go to another home if the standard of living for the middle class retreats to an unacceptable level in the United States, leaving the rest behind to pick over the corpse of the American landscape as our standard of living nosedives and we struggle to cope with the loss of the services and support we have come to take for granted.

As a postscript to this essay, we have just experienced a relatively local disaster that bodes ill for our national future. The real picture doesn't get the visibility it deserves. In the Bay Area, a twenty-four foot section of thirty inch natural gas pipe blew out of the ground, killing residents and leveling an entire neighborhood. This is not an isolated event, almost two thousand of these types of "accidents" occur each year. Add to that the "other" infrastructure failures occurring at an ever increasing rate, and we're in for a rocky road. Replacing that infrastructure has been left to the private companies that own them, with predictable results. They are now fifty years old and crumbling. Can we afford to replace them by down-sizing government? I doubt it. Neither will Americans see greater taxation as a solution. Only a huge government (gulp) stimulus could achieve the desired results in time. With the current political environment, a stimulus seems unlikely. So our infrastructure will continue to crumble as we tune our fiddles for the coming winter.