quinnellery

[quinnellery]

The Stilling

Well, said, friend. Magnanimous, rational, attentive, reasonable... much like the next four years you were expecting when you wrote, much like the next four we now are as I am.

Still, so many in our media, in our government and in comments and channels online continue with contempt and ridicule, defamation and bile, alienating ever farther with their condescension what were already moons apart.

Yet how do we reason with the rabid? How do we quell their paranoia? How do we dispel their delusions, show they’ve been lied to, invite them back in as confederates after all they’ve done? How do we forgive insurrection and intimidation, sedition and continued plans for more? Because we empathize, see their point of view? When be it not ignorance, it’s calculation?

Would almost prefer being the Communist China they fear and round them all up as our Uighurs dear. Interesting notion, though I gather that theirs had far more legitimacy than ours have had here.

Well-learned scholars of yesteryear with vim advise us to ignore and to write off the dim, yet it’s just that attitude that has us herein, where now atheists pray and the righteous sin.

No. Magnanimity, hard as it is as it is to pronounce, must prevail and curtail, must forgive just an ounce. In that might the ready, able and willing realize they’re heard and yet find their stilling.

Your words inspire, revolution of bernie’s. Lest I go on, best be on my journeys. Just to the just, meek to the meek; like begets like, cheers to your week.

(Went real madrigal, there at the end, yeah? Sorry ‘bout that. Another time then.)

[quinnellery]

Uniting Elite Liberalism and the Working Class

(FRI) 10 APR, 2020

There's got to be a way liberal ideas can unite the working class and the elite. Liberal thought is not exclusive to status. In fact, both wealth and work tend to induce more conservative outlooks; one is usually very interested in protecting what it has and the other is usually very interested in protecting what it might. Compounding this, wealth is usually attained as one ages and the older one gets when pursuing it, the more conservative they tend to become, so age is also a contributing factor. Though the young tend to predominantly be more liberal than their counterparts, liberal thinking isn't exclusive to age either; many wealthy people value civic duty just as much as the working class does. The problem with the young is they're undependable in getting to the voting booth. Better things to do or forgetful, one supposes, but likely just less aware of how important and significant it is. Ah, youth is wasted... Actually, "youth is wasted" is pretty accurate and a pretty good place to stop. That shortened phrase is also a good place to start in attempting to solve this dilemma. So, we have three groups to consider: the impoverished and idealistic youth, the paranoid elderly and the jaded middle-aged. What do these three groups have in common? That's question one. Question two: Do we want to impose our values onto them or let their values inform our strategy? Smartest option is the latter, if we're interested in serving them. If we're more interested in advancing our own agenda, smartest answer is the former. Both options have their disadvantages (One predominantly has a problem with genuineness, one predominantly has a problem with authoritarianism.) Maybe, a look at the tenets of liberalism will illuminate something appealing and help us with our approach. Surprisingly, the main one is found in the very name, but is more closely associated these days with conservative ideology: (1) liberty-- liberty of thought, liberty of expression, of speech, of free press, of ambition, of health, of choice, of security, of justice, of holding people accountable for their actions, liberty to assemble, to privacy, to religion, to an education, to fair play. Liberty covers just about everything, emphasizing freedom and opportunity. The second main tenet also comes from a conservative source: (2) civil duty-- caring for others less fortunate than ourselves-- the poor, the uneducated, the elderly, the infirm; being gallant and helpful and kind, supportive of our fellow citizens; participating community service, in school, in extra curricular activities; public safety and security; knowledge and participation in government; voting to help shape our country; promoting conservation and clean water and not littering; securing our borders and private property; keeping us healthy, happy and productive. Civil duty emphasizes religious traditions and inclusion. The third tenet of liberalism was radical for modern times when it was adopted: (3) democracy-- pluralism, toleration, autonomy, representation, individualism over the collective, the collective over the world (patriotism), utilitarianism, egalitarianism. Democratic ideals form the basis for everything else. The fourth tenet is purely our own and directs the compass of action: (4) social justice-- promoting civil rights; humanism; combating abuse and discrimination in all its forms... racism, sexism, misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia. Social justice unites people and is never lip service.

Regarding lip service (briefly), liberals have gotten a bad rap about this lately. Think the Civil Rights Movement was lip service? Woman's Suffrage? How 'bout gay rights? The only ones that can be accused of lip service are those trying to normalize identity politics in government, on campuses and in entertainment. All left-wing radicals are liberal, yes, but not all liberals are left-wing radical. And, we all know the new propagandists in the studios-- conservative practitioners of liberal thought, selling an inferior political product in the most palliative and often insulting ways possible, so don't lump them in with us. Those are realms of the ideologue and radical, two things we are not. The vast majority of liberals are moderates, adhering more to principles of liberal conservatism (look it up, it's fascinating) than liberal radicalism or socialism.

Scholars have said some good things about liberalism. One said, liberalism actually "rejects ideological thinking" altogether (Wolfe) and another tendered, liberalism is "the only comprehensive and hopeful vision of world affairs" (Venturelli), though a rather famous one, named Edmund Burke, thought to be the father of modern conservatism, saw "liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and to the natural equality of all humans" a very real threat when critiquing the liberals of the French Revolution-- you know, the ones who chopped off all those heads with the guillotine.

We've got to watch out for that, but nobody's perfect, neither the venerable Mr. Burke nor liberals. Share and share alike, regarding hypocrisy and how it's intrinsic to the human condition (No one's capable of being a purist. Never were, apparently). Speaking of sharing: Abraham Lincoln, liberal republican. We get the liberal part, conservatives get the bit that's republican. Win-win! Back to Question one and the commonality between the impoverished young, the paranoid wealthy and the jaded middle-aged. The answer could be (1) money-- how to get it, how to keep it, how to get more of it more easily and how to spend it how we want to or productively. The answer could be (2) opportunity-- how to create it, how to secure it, how to expand it, how to make them better, more lucrative and attractive, how to let others have access to it without jeopardizing our own. The answer could be (3) security-- how to get it, how to do it, how to keep it and how to create it. The answer could be (4) quality of life-- how to maintain it, how to obtain it, how to encourage it and how to increase it.  Hmmm... I think I'm seeing a pattern... Ah! Yes. What do these things seem to have in common... The economy, stupid. The economy can include jobs, health care, education, business, ideals centering around feminism involving opportunity and accountability, innovation, technology, the environment, fiscal responsibility, universal daycare, paid leave, UBI, tax reformation... nearly everything that appeals to all three groups. Some might better excite our youth and some will even appeal to conservatives. Liberty, the economy and civil duty. That should be enough to keep any liberal busy and happy. If presented to fellow Americans in a legitimate, sensible and persuasive way, it should also be enough to unite them under our flag and convince them of liberalism's practicality, demonstrating how liberalism can work for them. Liberal democrats need to get their butts in gear and take back what they used to own, principles that have been stolen and appropriated by conservatives. When they're in power, they need to remember republicans are fellow Americans and they serve to check growth and change don't go apace too quickly, just like democrats do when republicans hold the majority. Add in a healthy dollop of responsibility, shave off the radicals, and they've got game again with a platform that secures elites, workers, the wealthy, the youth, Independents and the poor, as well as all the vitality and strength and backing and knowledge they could ever want. Forget the rigged gerrymandering. Too time-consuming anyway. Play the numbers, win the enchilada.

#politics liberalism democracy

[quinnellery]

I didn't understand how to reverse the chronology of posts in the instructions. I'd like the most recent posts to show up at the end of my blog, but where is the specific location of the URL that accepts the /chrono tag? I could use someone's help to walk me through, screen-by-screen, how and where to properly apply it.

[quinnellery]

Quitting Culture

Quitter culture Twitter culture Cancel culture twit

Lying culture Bye-bye culture What they say’s legit

Don’t Question culture Don’t Dissent culture Don’t Think culture nit

Cancel culture Quits the culture Dumbing down the wit

---

No, dude Y’know, dude? Can’t culture tit

He said She said Can’t culture snit

Call them out! Follow clout Cancel culture spit

Cult culture Quitting culture Cancel culture pit

--------------

#politics/chrono socialissues/chrono poetry/chrono writing/chrono culture/chrono

[quinnellery]

Maybe the Chimps Have Something

Maybe the Chimps Have Something

By Quinn Ellery

I really liked a post I saw on the internet once that expounded upon the strengths of our democracy and the capitalistic society we all value. I think it missed a fundamental flaw in our hallowed capitalistic structure, though: When corporations refuse to allow new costs of doing business to come out of their profits and continually pass them on to their customers by increasing the prices for their products, wages must grow in order to keep pace.

But what's not realistic is that wages will ever keep pace. If we look down the road and the inevitable conclusion, given the 10-cent price of bread during The Great Depression and historical inflation, in fifty years or so, a loaf of bread will cost 10$, a gallon of milk 25, and a gallon of gas (if we still have any) will be 30$ or more. Think wages will increase so we can afford to purchase what we need? Nope.

I don’t intend to be an alarmist and I know this argument has hounds, but I think it’s something for which we should prepare, as the premise is still sound.

So where, really, is this Grand Experiment going? How will it avoid a total collapse into anarchy without the government stepping in to freeze prices for a few years and all the resultant, associated nightmares such a course of action would confirm in our worse revolutionary fears?

Sure, it would be nice if minimum wage became 75$ an hour, but how likely do we really think that’s going to happen? I just don't know. I have the opportunity of living in three centuries, so I actually could see the beginnings of all the above for a little while before I move on.

I just don't see a sustainable endgame, unless wealth redistribution becomes a part of national pride-- a national pride such as we had during WWII.

A national pride, where owners, as they’ve begun to do in a northern province of Spain, decide they will earn no more than three times of their lowest paid employee.

A national pride in which all profits get spread out evenly to all the workers, while part of them and some of their high wages are not actually paid, but put back into the company, in effect making them all part owners, collectively-- the next step (or two) after what is known today as “profit sharing.”

A national pride in which “term limits” of seven or ten years of company ownership are voluntarily adopted (none of this can be legislated; the country would erupt!!), where business owners would sell their corporate property rights, either to another owner for the next seven or ten years, or to the workers themselves, who’d then create their own collective with their own boards and their own management, which, after their seven or ten years were up, would then pass the company on either to the next generation of workers or to another single owner, restarting the whole endeavor. Departing owners could then be free to do what most secretly wish they could do-- pick up to go start a new company, avoiding conditions that make them feel stagnated and stifled.

I like the first idea, am not certain about the second, but could probably live with it (there's a lot of hope for the masses there), and I know of several business people who actually do the last idea, sort of acting like nomadic business geniuses that get their rocks off building a business up, then get board, choose to sell around the seven year mark, and move on to the next joy in their lives, building up another company-- the real pleasure of business.

As radical as all that sounds, these are logical, workable solutions. Unfortunately, these solutions (designed to salvage capitalism) can easily be critiqued as the very definitions of socialism-- or even communism-- though they really don’t come anywhere close.

In true socialism or communism, when everyone is contributing, things are poor, but fine, as nearly everyone is in the same boat. In the worst case scenario, the society buys into giving up 80% of their collapsing wages so they can then be equally portioned out to those who can't, won't, or don't work in order to keep them alive-- another (depressing) form of national pride.

Imagine, you earn 100$ a day carting metal and wood around and when you go to collect your wages, they thank you for your service, give you twenty bucks and you're supposed to be happy in the knowledge that you’re supporting all those other citizens. At that point, Marx and the People win and ownership or equity in anything becomes meaningless.

Should such a thing happen in America, today's 1% become tomorrow's 10, and 40% of the population work (if enough work is available) to support the 50% who aren’t. In effect the wealthy become the upper middle classes of today who don't need to work because they've collectively banked their earlier wealth while effectively creating a new slave class of hale workers who are now in a worse state than where they once began; 90% get paid poorly and 10% never need to work again. Nearly the entire population loses out. Sound familiar?

The suggestions made earlier-- 3:1 wage ratios, collective worker ownership, business owner term limits-- though similar to socialism and even communism (but miles away from being so), would effectively repel such a horrible future. They would, in truth, go a long way in saving capitalism, make our economy independently sustainable, and preserve our basic capitalistic traditions-- getting paid well for our work, the pursuit of a modest profit is good and noble, competition best regulates a market and the freedom for innovation must have multiple means to flourish. All of these are key and should be cherished.

Unfortunately, though some may see the need for such changes or others like it, for others, I fear our collective anxiety of anything resembling socialistic or communistic concepts will prevent needed change. We’ll likely need things to get so bad as to break down into a dystopia, go through all that pain and death, before deciding we should’ve done something. After some time, though, over the generations of recovery, we’ll have forgotten the lesson and will likely begin building the same system all over again.

Hmmmm. Sometimes, I think we might be better off if we all just went back up the trees.

ref:  hounds = flaws or, more specifically, those who sound them out. (Sorry, couldn’t pass up the tempting rhyme when I happened to see the meter’s time. On occasion, my writing goes there; a wee challenge, as though the words dare.)

#politics economics socialissues writing capitalism business /chrono