Independence
Some say that the real issue in the human equation is power: who has it, who wants it – and what one is willing to do in order to get and keep it.
And power is but a metaphor for Capital.
So in order for us to discuss independence, let us ask, “Independence from what and from whom?”
Anyone who has in mind the fate of a people, a country, a nation – will more likely than not, spend very little of their time in relentless pursuit of capital, and its analog, power.
Yet, the people are fooled by this every time.
For independence to have meaning, it must become untethered to brokers of capital and power. Or else, the people fall prey to them.
If Main Street is to remain alive, it cannot be abused by Wall Street. Main Street can work with Wall Street, but as partners, not servants.
There is an independence of freedom, if the people will simply vote for it – and not something else.
In the Book of Samuel, written about 2600 years ago, the people ask for a king, which in a very real sense, may be construed as the desire for representation, a desire that would later lead to the creation of a Parliament or a Congress. God tells the people what such a body, unchecked, is apt to do:
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves."
In The Tragedy of Coriolanus, written approximately 2200 years later, in the early 17th century - Shakespeare’s citizen has this to say of the political oppressors of his time:
"Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
In the two hundred years that followed, there were revolutions in England, France and America. No one denies that these revolutions were wrought by mismanagement and abuse of the land and livelihood of the people, by a self-appointed nobility and their heirs.
Looking upon America today, we must acknowledge that many gains have been made. We also cannot ignore that many gains have been lost. Indeed, many gains have been squandered by an apathetic independence on the part of citizens, and again, by a largely self-appointed nobility, due to the fact that the political and media communication machinery, and electoral processes remain largely held hostage by them.
Does our present status harken back to an earlier time when America was beholden to an unresponsive Mother England? Where citizens speak – but the government does not listen? Have we accomplished enough since then? Have we merely imported some variation on a feudal theme, an elected, yet pre-selected nobility and heirs all the same? That body politic of Congress, talking tough about fiscal strength and responsibility, all the while showering trillions of dollars upon banks, industry and defense – at the expense a demoralized, degenerating middle class?
ABC News recently reported on July 2, 2010 that at a recent city council meeting regarding the potential construction of a Wal-Mart store in Chicago, a concerned citizen pointed out that:
"…Wal-Mart CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By comparison, at a Wal-Mart store planned for the Windy City's Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year."
The debate over the disparity of compensation among corporate nobility and the officials they help elect continues nationwide, Chicago being only a recent example, because American citizens are increasingly concerned about “the pay gap between top executives and their rank-and-file employees”:
"A study last fall by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal Washington D.C. research group, found that CEOs in the country's S&P 500 companies make, on average, 319 times more than the average American worker.
IPS associate fellow Sam Pizzigati said that in the 1970s, that ratio was 30 to 1. 'We've seen, over the past three decades, a tenfold-plus increase in the gap between top executives and average American workers,' Pizzigati said…The top marginal tax rate, he said, dropped from 91 percent in the 1960s to 28 percent in 1980s. It stands at 35 percent today.
'If you look at the historical record, executive pay really started exploding in the early 1980s,' he said. 'That's when the top rate started precipitously falling.'
On the worker side, Pizzigati said, wages have been hurt by the declining power of U.S. organized labor. When it represented more than one-third of the American workforce, unions could influence wages -- and force them higher -- throughout the labor market. With just seven percent of Americans represented by unions today, Pizzigati said, that's no longer the case."
Relationships? According to the Federal Elections Commission filings to date, collated by the Center for Responsive Politics of OpenSecrets.org – Wal-Mart, through its PAC, or political action committee (Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for Responsible Government) – contributed $781,550 to federal candidates (53% to Democrats, 47% to Republicans). How’s that for fair and balanced? And don’t be misled; the Wal-Mart PAC contributed yet more money to other PACS, the Republican and Democratic political parties, etc., who in turn contribute to federal candidates and so on.
Under such an integral reality, independence, becomes something else.
It’s easy to tighten belts and lift boot straps, says the noble Congress – when they are not their own. Tough love is needed says the Congress – but for the people, not themselves.
Can we do better than this? Is that all there is?
America can’t feel her legs anymore – but she’s still running. They say she’s getting better – but she doesn’t feel any better. Americans don’t feel any better.
Independence is somewhat more serious than a speech and a barbecue, and something less radical than a revolution. It’s a process of deliberative negotiation which we enact and embody every day. This Fourth of July, ask yourself: What does independence mean to me? To my family? America?
Take not, America for granted; nothing is more uncertain.
Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D
NRIII for Congress 2010
http://intertheory.org/nriiiforcongress2010.html
____________________________________
Editor, Kritikos
http://intertheory.org
