Absence of Vision

Reading the more liberal columnists lately, there seems to be a general consensus that the Republicans have run out of ideas. Not surprising, really. In recent years, the GOP has nailed its colors to the mast, taking any number of irrational positions, such as:

• All taxes are bad; all tax cuts are good.
• Markets can always be trusted; government, never.
• Global climate change probably isn't happening, and it if it is, it's just a cyclical thing.
• A tiny bundle of cells with human DNA is entitled to the same dignity as a living person.
• Gun laws which make sense in the country and in the suburbs also make sense in our large urban areas.

Obviously, a political party which ties itself to this brand of political fundamentalism is bound to come a-cropper. And, though there are signs that less extreme conservatives - like my early prediction for the party's 2012 presidential candidate, Newt Ginrich - are moderating somewhat, there is no feasible way for a Republican nominee to run on a platform which denies the values which have been drubbed for decades into the receptive minds of the Republican "base".

What the liberal pundits - and the generally pro-Obama corporate media - refuse to acknowledge is that the Democratic Party has no more new ideas that the GOP. We live in an "age of faith" - as witness the nation's willingness to hand over the presidency to a man about whom we know next to nothing. Both parties are, in a sense, fundamentalist, ideological, and backward-looking. Even the President, who shows flickers of vision, seems locked into a retrospective mindset.

Thus, the need for an entirely fresh look at the state of the nation, and the world, as we approach the vernal equinox of 2009. Abraham Lincoln said it in words which every American high school student should be required to memorize:

"The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

In posts to come, I will be attempting to set forth some ideas which - in my judgment - might form the basis of a new view of reality.

For today, let's start with one: In this time of economic crisis, we don't need to create millions of new jobs. We need to move toward a society in which fewer Americans have jobs.

When I was teaching History, I used to observe to my students that, to the best of my knowledge, not one of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, or the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, had a job. They were planters, farmers, lawyers, doctors, and - in one famous case - a printer; but they were all self-employed. In many cases, they were what we would call entrepreneurs.

They thought of themselves as independent, as indeed they were. They answered to no one, and thus, could think for themselves. Thus, the Founders.

Some forward-looking economists, including Charles Handy, have predicted that the present century will be one in which ever fewer people have actual jobs, in the sense of working for someone else. More and more, people will have small businesses and/or work as independent contractors.

And what's wrong with that? For some time now, the driving forces in America's economy - at least, the productive (as opposed to consuming) side of it - have been the small business owner and the highly-skilled independent contractor. Even in the good times, the big corporations weren't really creating that many jobs. And the jobs they created didn't provide high pay or good benefits.

Yet, even today, we continue to treat our educational system as though its mission were to produce factory workers - cooperative, punctual, unquestioning drones who are very good at memorizing trivia and very reluctant to take risks.

We need just the opposite.

Similarly, even as President Obama pours billions into sinking corporations in hopes of creating jobs, he is pursuing health care options based on the overall model of employer-provided benefits.

What if he truly "thought anew"? What if he envisioned a health care system which had, at its core, the liberation of Americans' entrepreneurial genius?

For some time - even before the recession - I have been arguing that there must be at least a million "dilberts" out there who have a dream of starting a business of their own, but who are held back by the fear that they would be unable to provide adequate health care for themselves and their families. If I'm right - and I'm confident that I am - a health-care plan that actually guaranteed quality, affordable insurance to individuals and families could liberate a million entrepreneurs. It might well be the biggest thing since the invention of the microchip.

Unfortunately, such a health care approach will be impossible so long as we focus on preserving an old system which doesn't work: a system in which health insurance is provided by big corporate employers, who buy it from other big health insurance corporations, to be spent (all too often) at big corporate hospitals and medical practices.

We're not going to build a new economy, or a better society, if we aren't willing to let the dinosaurs die. And, Detroit aside, I can't think of a more deserving group of dinosaurs than our big health insurance companies and the big pharmaceutical companies whose profits they underwrite.

At any rate, this is merely a beginning: One new perspective which might liberate us to think of ways in which our nation might be saved - and might move toward a better future.

Let's think in terms of fewer jobs, and more small enterprise and self-employment.

There is more to this, and I'll pick up the thread next time. But my point is this: Based on the evidence thus far, the Democrats - and their new president - don't seem to be any more future-oriented than the Republicans. They simply have the advantage which comes, for a brief while, when your one and only opposition falls flat on its collective face.

By 2012, the Democrats might well have done the same, in which case, one party of old ideas will again replace the other in a continuing process of nothing new.