This morning, I learned of a New York Times article, “Stress on Troops Adds to U.S. Hurdles in Iraq,” by Benedict Carey from Prometheus 6.
I’m infuriated by the fact that the average U.S. soldier is required to carry such a heavy load in Iraq. 15-month tours are RIDICULOUS! Do U.S. citizens really understand what that is doing to our soldiers’ families as well as their minds? Our soldiers are tough, but they are also human. And, I’m upset because my fellow U.S. citizens and I are forcing the average U.S. soldier to carry such a heavy load for our country.
I still believe U.S. voters and taxpayers have the power to do one of two things to help our soldiers 1) increase the number of U.S. soldiers in the U.S. Military in order to decrease the burden the average U.S. soldier must bear in order to carry out our country’s political economic ends or 2) bring our soldiers home. And, I believe U.S. voters and taxpayers need to stop pretending as though someone else, or something else, is responsible for what our government or military forces are doing in Iraq. U.S. voters and taxpayers are responsible for our presence in Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise needs to make a persuasive argument that U.S. voters and taxpayers no longer have the power to make our government or military do what we want them to do. The argument can’t just persuade us that it would be difficult for us to make our government or military to do what we want them to do. The argument will need to make the case that U.S. voters and taxpayers are powerless when it comes to Iraq, that someone or something else can override the combined will of U.S. voters and taxpayers.
I’m not convinced powerful special interests have more power over our government or military than all taxpaying U.S. voters. I’m not ready to accept that. I understand what accepting such a conclusion entails, and I’m not ready to admit that I live in that kind of country. So, when I begin to point fingers at someone for the gross mistreatment of our soldiers, I point my finger first at myself and my fellow U.S. voters and taxpayers. I think U.S. voters could have done even more in November 2006 to help our soldiers. I hope we will do more than talk about helping our soldiers in 2008.
U.S. citizens do our philosophical and ideological talking via blogs and newspapers, via television and radio shows, and during our heated face-to-face debates. But those of us who aren’t soldiers (or are veterans) do our walking with our votes and with our money. Either we support the U.S. presence in Iraq or we don’t. Our combined action or inaction leads me to believe that we support it. I hear what people are saying through popular media outlets and blogs, but I also know what our elected representatives are doing. Our legislators have the power to decrease the average burden per soldier by increasing the number of soldiers in the U.S. Military (not necessarily the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq). Our legislators have the power to bring our troops home now. We gave and give that power to our legislators. If you are convinced special interests control our legislators, and through our legislators our government, and through our government our military, then shouldn’t you also be convinced that U.S. voters and taxpayers don’t have the power to take back control from those special interests? Because if special interests control our government and U.S. voters and taxpayers still have the power to take control back from special interests, then we are allowing special interests to control our government and military.
So, if we support staying in Iraq for the long haul, then the U.S. Military needs to get much bigger. A bigger military would enable more soldiers to carry less burden per soldier. And, if we decide that we want a bigger military that would spread around the burden of our political economic action in Iraq, then we need to elect legislators who would carry out our political economic will. If we don’t support staying in Iraq, then we need to get out. There would be experts who would tell us that leaving abruptly would cause all sorts of problems for us and Iraq down the road. There would be experts who would tell us the opposite. Predicting the future is tricky business. However, if enough U.S. voters prove they want the soldiers to come home when they place their votes, the soldiers will come home.
We need to start talking about how we, U.S. voters and taxpayers, are failing our soldiers. We need to start pointing our fingers in the right direction.
19 Comments
I’m not convinced powerful special interests have more power over our government or military than all taxpaying U.S. voters. I’m not ready to accept that. I understand what accepting such a conclusion entails, and I’m not ready to admit that I live in that kind of country.
One of my favorite wise old sayings is, reality is what’s left when you take away all the beliefs. I don’t even think it’s cynical.
David Satterfield of the State Dept. says the big problem in Iraq isn’t the security environment, it’s the business environment. That takes away all question as to “our” priorities, doesn’t it?
It may be the case that special interests can be overridden by ALL the US taxpayers, but they can’t be overridden by half of them. Either half. Especially when about a third of us not only claim everything is just WONderful, all going according to plan, but really biutch and complain about the slighest hint to the contrary.
P6:
I hear you. I always tell my disaffected friends, who believe special interests got the U.S. on lockdown for good, they have two choices that make sense to me: 1) try to change the game (and I wish the iconoclastic idealists luck), or 2) accept that they are actual players in this U.S. wealth, power, and prestige game and to play the game to the max. Some think there is an acceptable third choice: just talk about what’s wrong, spread the word to a few other disaffected folks, and hope for the best. But that third choice seems so futile and impotent to me; it’s akin to accepting defeat.
I don’t like to stop fighting or to accept defeat until I get knocked all the way out. I might be delusional; however, I just don’t feel knocked all the way out yet. Over the next several decades I got left (being hopeful) I intend to fight for as much wealth, power, and prestige as I can get my hands on without cutting a deal with Mephistopheles. I won’t try the “change the game” route. I’ll try the “play the game to the max” route. If a few hundred of the wealthiest, the most powerful, and the most prestigious U.S. citizens will continue to influence the U.S. more than a divided and misled nation of more than 150 million taxpaying enfranchised citizens, then I know which game I need to play in order to be more than a mere talker, a mere complainer. Besides, what’s to be gained by the incessant talk about how special interests are pimping me?
So, while I work on that wealth, power, and prestige accumulation stuff, I guess I’ll help get some voters to the polls and write some checks for the people I believe will do the right thing, and if not the right thing, the best wrong thing.
If most disaffected U.S. citizens believe they can’t change the game yet they aren’t willing to play the game and play it to the max, then what’s the point of even talking about what’s wrong with the game? When folks begin to feel that powerless they can still point the finger at themselves. They can point their fingers at the images in the mirrors and say: “You are being pimped by special interests and there is nothing you can do about it. So, just stop talking about how you hate your pimps, and start enjoying what’s left of your dignity. Don’t worry; be happy.”
Some think there is an acceptable third choice: just talk about what’s wrong, spread the word to a few other disaffected folks, and hope for the best.
That’s not a choice.
I won’t try the “change the game” route.
Argue for your limits and sure enough, they’re yours.
P6:
I do not agree with the tactics Henry David Thoreau described in “Civil Disobedience.” So, what’s my next best option at this stage of my life? I believe it is to play the game to the max and strive to win legitimate opportunities to change the game.
I won’t try the “change the game” route at this stage, because I don’t have the wealth, power, or prestige to get anything important done. At my wealth, power, and prestige levels, my best option for making an attempt to change the game would probably be to follow in Thoreau’s footsteps. I believe that would be a futile tactic in the 21st Century. Instead, I think those who really want to change the game must be more pragmatic and less idealistic. If someone really wants to change the game, then he or she should play the current game to the max and strive to accumulate ample rewards first. Once he or she becomes one of the game’s top players, then he or she should have a shot at getting something more than empty talk accomplished.
So many will spend their entire lives talking and they will never really get around to walking. Few will try to change the game the way Thoreau tried. And few will be able to play the current game well enough to gain the wealth, power, or prestige that would be necessary to do something that could change the game. But I’ll respect folks who would do what Thoreau did or folks who would strive to accumulate ample wealth, power, and prestige in the current game with the intentions to change the game, much more than folks who would invest their time and energy in futile rhetorical tactics that would yield trivial returns, if any.
If you believe I’m overlooking another good option or tactic, let me know what’s up or give me a hyperlink or a book reference that I can learn from.
So, what’s my next best option at this stage of my life? I believe it is to play the game to the max and strive to win legitimate opportunities to change the game.
I won’t try the “change the game” route at this stage, because I don’t have the wealth, power, or prestige to get anything important done.
Seriously, the first step would be to decide whether you’re trying to “change the game” or not.
(Are you? Or are you eliciting opinions here? I saw the consecutive links as something of an invitation to discussion…and this is not yet that discussion, by the way.)
The second step it to admit out loud (to yourself…”out loud” being metaphorical here) what price you’re willing to pay for your goals. Frankly, that holds whether you’re trying to “change the game” or not.
Got it. This is an invitation to discussion. I don’t care about whether my blog threads stay on topic. My top purpose for this blog is to have conversations with smart people that help us figure stuff out.
Sure, I want to change the game. I want to make it more meritocratic. I want a help transform my country into one that distributes social rewards such as wealth, power, and prestige based on competitions and merit, but I want the competitions to be as just as we can afford to make them. I believe we are far away from being able to honestly say that our competitions for wealth, power, and prestige are as just as they should be or as just as we could afford for them to be.
I want to strive for equality of opportunity for all citizens from the moments they are born to moments they become legal adults (I really like John Roemer’s suggested methods for doing this in his 1998 Equality of Opportunity). After that, I want all citizens to be able to compete on a level playing field as adults. So, I want competition to stay; I want the wealth, power, and prestige incentives to stay. I just want unearned and unmeritocratic intranational privileges to go away.
I realize the international political economic realm will heavily influence my efforts; however, my priorities will lead me to focus on transforming the intranational game before the international game whenever I believe I would be forced to choose between the two.
And, I don’t want to use impotent or time-wasting tactics. These days, as much as I love the art, I believe the finest rhetoric can be rendered impotent by powerful forces. I suspect organizing or helping to organize a few thousand like-minded people who lack ample wealth, power, or prestige can build an institution, but not a very strong one. So, I don’t know which good options—other than playing the game to the max in order to try to accumulate enough wealth, power, and prestige to have a good shot at changing it—are left for someone like me.
I have certain talents and skills. I have superior education. I have influential relationships. And, I have opportunities. These are my resources. I believe my theorizing and philosophizing won’t change the game much right now. I suspect I lack the prestige I would need to be a decent iconoclast, and I don’t want to become another one of those delusional talkers who believes he or she is doing something important. As far as wealth and power go, I hardly have enough to change the game at this stage. However, if I focus on wealth and power accumulation, I suspect I could have enough to make some meaningful changes in twenty, thirty, or forty years.
I know I have the option to just focus on the incorporeal world and to withdraw myself from the corporeal world. I know I can spend the rest of my days as a philosopher or a poet or a novelist who would try to immortalize some great ideas that might influence some folks who would live long after I will have died. But that’s not my style. I want to do something right now, in this life. I want to do as much as a 34-year old U.S. born Black man with my resources and life span could. And, I believe that I’ll have to build up my wealth, power, and prestige and help other like-minded folks do the same in order to have a shot at changing the game even a little.
I admitted it to myself years ago: “I want to change the game.” It took me some time to stop being unreasonably philosophical, theorectical, and idealistic. I am certain I don’t want to be an impotent iconoclast. And I am willing to pay amply, to sacrifice much of my comfort and opulence, in order to achieve my goals. But I’m not willing to voluntarily die young, unless I could be convinced that by dying young I would change the game more than I would change it if I were to live a long life and accumulate as much wealth, power, and prestige as I could. Yet I am certainly willing to do more during my life than merely earn enough money to make myself and those I love most very comfortable. I’m even willing to do more than help a few hundred Black folks do some valuable things that they would have been unable to do without my help.
I want to change the game by putting myself and other like-minded people in social positions of consequence, in game changing-positions. To me, this means I need to play the game I want to change and try to win some of its top awards. Once I have some of those awards—ample wealth, power, and prestige—then I’d like to start making the changes my rewards would enable me to make.
If you believe there is a better way, that is realistic, let me know about it P6. I’m not afraid to admit I was wrong. And I’m not afraid to assent to superior arguments.
I have to think about what you’re asking. It’s not quite the same as asking what I’d do if I had those resources.
Okay, I’d like you to understand the problem I would like to solve. I need a small fraction of the tolerance for rhetoric you extend to Prof. Glaude.
http://www.niggerati.net/node/24
I have an issue with the idea of gathering sufficient laurels to invoke change…the old evil wins when good folk do nothing chestnut.
Sorry, keyboarding error.
Anyway, I would ask that you look for game-changing moves you can make at the particular level you find yourself. You may find there are none, but don’t just wait because things won’t wait for you.
You want to have a more meritocratic society by removing the irrational. The irrational, though, is not seen as irrational. It is seen as common knowledge. So what you want to do is change common knowledge.
But that sounds to me exactly like what you don’t want to do.
P6:
Your argument from Maslow’s Theory has force with me. I won’t respond to it hastily. I’ll need to chew on it a bit.
Fair’s fair, and I’m not really going anywhere.
Take your time…I got the email notice box checked off.
from “The Root of the Resistance” by Prometheus 6
Maslow posited a hierarchy of human needs based on two groupings: deficiency needs and growth needs. Within the deficiency needs, each lower need must be met before moving to the next higher level. Once each of these needs has been satisfied, if at some future time a deficiency is detected, the individual will act to remove the deficiency. The first four levels are:
1. Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;
2. Safety/security: out of danger;
3. Belongingness and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and
4. Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.
According to Maslow, an individual is ready to act upon the growth needs if and only if the deficiency needs are met…
1. Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore;
2. Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty;
3. Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one’s potential; and
4. Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.
That the deficiency needs must be met first is critical to understanding the position Black people find themselves in today.The third and fourth needs are social in nature, the first and second (because we are social) are best fulfilled in a social context; though they are possible to fulfill as individuals, instinct compels us to seek out social means of doing so. This means the primary requirements of living successfully as a human are only (belongingness and esteem) or best (physiological and security) met as an integrated (in the non-sociological sense) part of a functioning society. Only then is it reasonable to expect a human to grow into the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, wisdom and all the higher aspects of human nature made possible by intelligence.
Unfortunately, potential members of a group do not get to simply attach themselves to the group. Africans in America, and their descendant African Americans, have sought to do exactly that and found it outside our power to compel the mainstream to grant us full membership in American society (which, unless you’re in absolute denial, you will admit is more than a matter of legal status). Unreasonable people have actively resisted that inclusion… though in strict terms I’m hard pressed to call it unreasonable because that inclusion would change the nature of the social “laws of nature,” which would affect them much like changing the rate of gravitational acceleration would change the life of your average bird. Reasonable people (and those who would appear reasonable) place a requirement on membership—Black people must demonstrate proficiency (”be qualified”) in exactly those areas Maslow says cannot be approached successfully outside the context of the membership we seek.
THE ARGUMENT UNPACKED
Premise a (Pa): “The third and fourth needs are social in nature, the first and second (because we are social) are best fulfilled in a social context; though they are possible to fulfill as individuals, instinct compels us to seek out social means of doing so.”
I add in a few unstated premises, Pb, Pc, and Pd, that are needed for SC1.
Pb: “the primary requirements of living successfully as a human being” are the actualization of Maslow’s first (Safety), second (Physiological), third (Love/Belonging), and fourth (Esteem).
Pc: Fulfilling Safety and Physiological needs for living successfully as a human being do not require a society.
Pd: Fulfilling Love/Belonging and Esteem needs for living successfully as a human being do require society.
Subsidiary Conclusion 1 (SC1): “This means the primary requirements of living successfully as a human are only (belongingness and esteem) or best (physiological and security) met as an integrated (in the non-sociological sense) part of a functioning society.”
I add in a unstated premise Pe that is needed for C1.
Pe: Only if Safety, Physiological, Love/Belonging, and Esteem needs have been fulfilled would it be “reasonable to expect a human to grow into the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, wisdom, and all higher aspects of human nature made possible by intelligence.”
Conclusion 1 (C1): “Only then is it reasonable to expect a human to grow into the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, wisdom and all the higher aspects of human nature made possible by intelligence.”
Pf: “Unfortunately, potential members of a group do not get to simply attach themselves to the group.”
Pg: “Africans in America, and their descendant African Americans, have sought to do exactly that…” [“that” is read as “attach themselves to the group”]
Ph: “and found it outside our power to compel the mainstream to grant us full membership in American society…”
”full membership” needs to be defined, see Pk
Pi: “(which, unless you’re in absolute denial, you will admit is more than a matter of legal status).”
Pj: “Unreasonable people have actively resisted that inclusion…”
I add in a few unstated premises, Pk, Pl, Pm, and Pn, and an unstated subsidiary conclusion, SC2, that are needed for C2.
Pk: “full membership” in “American society” is membership that would enable a member to attach to a group in a way that is not merely legal and would enable a member to fulfill the need for Love/Belonging and Esteem.
Pl: “full membership” in “American society” may only be granted by the “mainstream.”
Pm: The “mainstream” in “American society” are the individuals or groups who have the power to enable others to fulfill their needs for Love/Belonging and Esteem by granting “full membership” and the power to prevent others from fulfilling their need for Love/Belonging and Esteem by withholding “full membership.”
Pn: “Reasonable people,” who are members of the “mainstream,” and who have the power to grant “full membership” to Black people, require Black people to “demonstrate proficiency” [“demonstrate proficiency” is read as “demonstrate fulfillment of needs”] for Love/Belonging and Esteem before they are willing to grant “full membership.”
SC2: The fulfillment of the need for Love/Belonging and Esteem requires full membership in society.
C2: “Reasonable people (and those who would appear reasonable) place a requirement on membership—Black people must demonstrate proficiency (”be qualified”) in exactly those areas Maslow says cannot be approached successfully outside the context of the membership we seek.”
MY EVALUATION
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory buttressed the force of the argument through C1. The argument loses its force after C1. The soundness of Ph, of course, is controversial, but I wouldn’t agree or disagree with you before learning more about Pk. A better definition for “full membership” (a better Pk) might strengthen the argument. A better definition for “mainstream (a better Pm) might also strengthen the argument. I’d like to know whether Pm would need to include members of the society who were not among its power elite. An explanation for why you believe reasonable people necessarily require what you argue they require in Pn is needed. SC2, which depends on Pk, is very controversial, and I don’t think it can be defended well.
SC2 is your argument’s Achilles heel, and I think its indefensibility would render the argument unsound.
hahahahahahaha!
Okay, I don’t take possession of anyone else’s intellectual efforts, but that was pretty impressive. So
Where else canit come from?
I thought about your argument yesterday, and I wrote that detailed comment up this morning. It’s good to get that kind of exercise every once in a while. :)
As for SC2 Love/Belonging and Esteem requiring “full membership,” I suspect the best you could argue for is that the fulfillment of these needs for some U.S. Blacks would require “full membership” for those U.S. Blacks. That argument isn’t very strong. I would contend that something less than full membership would be sufficient in order to achieve Love/Belonging and Esteem for most or all U.S. Blacks. And, you certainly would not want to argue that “full membership” for all U.S. Blacks would be required for any U.S. Black to fulfill the Love/Belonging and Esteem needs. A single example of a U.S. Black who had fulfilled the Love/Belonging and Esteem needs would kill your argument.
You realize that doesn’t matter to me at all, right? Because if a single example invalidates my argument (which word I will challenge shortly) then no valid argument is possible on anything at all. Physicality being what it is, you can find that exception for any argument.
We’re making statistical judgments here. The phenomena and effects under consideration are more like gas pressure than particle positions.
Finally, I don’t see “The Root of the Resistance” as an argument. I see it as descriptive; an observation.
Oh yes, I realize your argument is based on an induction not a deduction. I was just pointing out the obvious, that the deduction route would not work for you at all, in my effort to discuss your argumentative options in light of your indefensible SC2.
The counter premise that would hurt your induction most is “that something less than full membership would be sufficient in order to achieve Love/Belonging and Esteem for most or all U.S. Blacks.” In order for your argument to be illuminating and sound, your audience would need to be convinced that what you would define as “full membership” would be required in order for most U.S. Blacks to fulfill the needs of Love/Belonging and Esteem.
Maybe a clearer definition of “full membership” would help, but I can’t think of one that would solve this problem for you. I just don’t believe very many folks would be convinced that “full membership” would be necessary for most U.S. Blacks to fulfill their Love/Belonging and Esteem needs.
Let me ask you: WHY did the ‘argument’ have have force with you? Has it lost that force?
As Chuang Tzu once wrote, a teaching that separates itself from the common people must be regarded as far from the Way for common people.
I didn’t say this was induction rather than deduction. I said it was an observation. There’s nothing to defend because even you see the accuracy of the statement. You may have typed up your translation and extensions of my statement is a few minutes but you had to analyze the hell out of the argument you constructed from my statement to find something to debate here.
Your analysis here is like calculating the orbit of the moon by tracking each rock individually. Yeah, Einstein is more accurate than Newton, but you don’t need to take relativity into account to plot a path from your house to the supermarket.
And if you’re working for typical folks…I’m really not concerned for, say, you because you obviously don’t need advice…you have to put things within their reach. I have gone to war with cnulan over obfuscatory vocabulary…I have the same (okay, a parallel) problem with requiring deeper analysis than life does.
P6:
I wanted to unpack your arguments because I did not immediately understand why it had force with me. I think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory is one of the most useful in social psychology, and I could tell when I read your article that you had used it well for part of your argument. But I don’t often like to nod my head to arguments that merely seem correct upon first glance. I like to nod my head to arguments that I believe are correct after I have analyzed them.
Your article is not merely an observation. It is persuasive speech. It certainly contains arguments. It is an appeal to reason; and you reason using induction.
I agree that most of our writings, pleas, and appeals should be directed at typical folks. If we want others to benefit directly as much as possible from our speech and the good ideas we transport through our speech, then we will target most of our speech toward typical people. I like to believe I know how and when to switch gears between languages, dialects, or rhetorical devices based on the audience. However, before I present ideas to typical people, I run the ideas through my esoteric resources. I want to transport good ideas to typical people in order to improve lives; however, I also want the ideas I transport to stand on strong logical foundations.
I tend to build on physical foundations. I always assume human bodies are reacting when I think on these things. There are things we just recognize. That’s why my initial response to SC2 was, where else can [esteem and belongingness] come from?
So my support for the indefensible SC2 would be the physical fact of our anthropoid nature. The Root of the Resistance was part of a series that I wrote literally to get it out of the way. In A View of the Outside From The Inside I said
I have found it necessary not to assume every friendly approach is friendly, to open only to the degree that I receive openness. Separately I have also found it necessary to be really clear about the border between what I say and what people say I say. In case you’re wondering why I’m prickly.