Politics
By James Palombo
More food for thought…
In this month’s edition I want to reference several articles that appeared in the news over the past few weeks. Although each one stands on its own relative to the issues raised — some interesting things are going on these days — they are indeed interconnected, and also tied to concerns noted in my previous columns. The following piece then presents this interwoven review, hopefully demonstrating the practical significance of what was previously presented for your reading. I trust this will be of value in advancing thought on our ever changing American experiment, but as always, I’ll let you be the judge.
The first article, “The new mortgage revolution: walk away” by Alyssa Katz. (www.housingwatch.com/2010/01/25) succinctly captures the essence of the “strategic default” phenomenon. In general, this strategy suggests to those who owe more on their mortgage than their property is worth to simply pack-up and move on. As Ms. Katz points out throughout the piece, there are a variety of elements that have been offered in support of the idea: the actions of the big real-estate developers seem to reflect it, i.e., they do it all the time; real-estate agents feel this might re-invigorate a sluggish market with “short” re-sales; a number of interest groups propose that large scale defaults will be a revolution of sorts, justified in addressing a system that allowed the banks to screw the lender in the first place; that default, in such hard economic times, will not really effect what future borrowing may be like; and defaulting on the mortgage will actually free up money which can be spent on/put into the market for other items.
Ms. Katz’s also quotes Connecticut Realtor Minna Reid who said “I know many will consider strategic default wrong or immoral, but as for me, I stopped passing judgment long ago.” And this seems to mirror the sentiments of many who are involved with the process.
Being perfectly honest, I can appreciate how one could arrive at such a feeling — almost all the logic tied to it makes economic and self-interest sense. And in terms of any moral or ethical questions, or the idea that two wrongs really don’t make a right, well, in short, and especially given today’s moral climate, one could easily say, “give me a break.”
Yet, it just doesn’t seem right to leave it at that. In other words, there should be more to consider. For example, one might want to know to what extent the cynical, morally callous attitude displayed in terms of the “strategic default” strategy is reflective of the overall nature of the instincts developed in our society? And how did these “instincts” become so prevalent? I mean have we always just been this way? Or is this type behavior part of a larger phenomenon, one that is affecting the changing cultural instincts of our entire country? Is it in fact tied to the same instincts that fueled the financial crisis itself?
Clearly, if there is more to all of this than human nature, and there surely must be, then we must inquire as to what has been motivating such behavior — behavior that makes America appear at odds with its own democratically principled identity? I think you would agree that although the answer includes elements of our nature, it has to also include elements connected to the environment in which we live. And to this point relates one that I have stressed to some length in previous columns — that in order to understand things like “strategic default”, or the financial crisis, or all the other economic aspects that tip the scale of our perceived morality, we must consider the effects of living in our advanced system of capitalism. Without this, it is hard to understand that beyond pure human greed, there are things at work which may be pushing us to act in ways that seem inconsistent with the principles we want to lay claim to, principles that seem to be slipping away from us as we speak.
It is no secret that we’ve reached a form of economic rationalization, where it becomes more likely that when the dollar versus morality decisions come due, the scales of choice will tip more and more in favor of the dollar. How far this will go, well, who knows? As the articles previously presented imply, however, this appears to be a situation we seem to be looking away from rather than into. And certainly this doesn’t bode well for rectifying the serious problems at hand.
In speaking of the “dollar tipping the scales” theme, the next article references similar considerations relative to our “scale of justice.” In his piece, “No-dollars-barred campaigns” the Washington Post’s David Broder highlights the Supreme Court holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In short the decision provides corporations the opportunity to spend unlimited resources on election campaigns. For the most part (legal decisions are never easy to relay to “lay public”), Broder expressed the inherent worry related to this decision — that it could well result in an even more money/profit tilted process than we currently see in action. In this sense, he offers the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens who along with three of his colleagues objected to the decision, saying that it confronts “the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate engineering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.”
I certainly have no objection to Mr. Broder’s approach, or to the dissenting opinion offered by the Court — that unfettered capitalism does not work well at any level, particularly in relation to the political principles tied to the nature of democracy, and it does certainly seem like a “strange time” to take this course of action. (Could there ever be such a time?)
But in order to fully grasp the nature of this decision, wouldn’t it seem necessary that the reader/the public have adequate knowledge of the political and economic principles tied to this decision? In this sense, wouldn’t having information as to the Conservative/Republican nature of this decision, as well as how such a Conservative/Republican dominated court came to be, be important? And shouldn’t the public also have adequate knowledge of how things might be different in regards to a Liberal/Democrat decision, and what a “stacked” Liberal/Democrat Court might result in? Moreover, shouldn’t the public also have an adequate understanding of how both these political parties, as well as the governmental processes themselves (including the judicial, executive, and legislative branches) are affected by the nature of the capitalist/profit driven system in which we live? In other words, regardless of what political party is in power, can we ever attach to the principles related to democracy and self-government as long as the capitalist system goes on without real notice and/or understanding and/or altering?
Once again, and like with idea of “strategic default” these type questions as well as their answers would seem to be required ingredients in making any informed rationalization as to what has been happening relative to such significant considerations. And I think that as you listen, read and watch what is going on, you would have to agree, no? (As a little side note, how would it be to see corporate logos worn by those in government? One can imagine the result, although it would seem that corporations wouldn’t really want to overtly place their tags/identity on the foolishness that would ensue — things may well be better just as they are.)
The last article of note “Google negotiating ways to keep its presence in China” was syndicated by the Associate Press. In essence, the article references the struggle involved as Google’s interest in the enormous potential of the Chinese market, i.e., profit, meets with interpretations of the Chinese government in terms of the “free-flow” of information, i.e., principle. In other words (and like with issues pertinent to human rights interpretations and profit), what should a corporation do? After all, any political censorship should not be tolerated in relationship to the principle of free-speech – isn’t that what we Americans stand for? Yet, the market is just so immense, and, well, isn’t that what we stand for?
There is no doubt that Google will reach some form of compromise, which will most likely be formed in the context of it being mutually beneficial to both countries. However, the situation itself is indicative of not only the ongoing struggle of principle versus the dollar, and the cultural instincts developed within the context of a corporate/market milieu, but also with the issues that were raised in the November column regarding my experience at the G-20 in Pittsburgh PA, particularly the reference to what was described as the on-going struggle between western and eastern capitalism.
In other words, one can see that what is developing with the “Google and China story” speaks to this contest of western versus eastern interpretations of economic, political and social policy. Moreover, it demonstrates the power of China to strongly influence and even dictate policy in terms of its burgeoning producer and consumer market, as well as its nexus to other developing countries. This is so irrespective of technology innovations or anything else that western corporations bring to the table.
With all this being said, the fact remains that to understand today’s international strategies and policy decisions, an understanding of the process of capitalism is a must. And in recognition that the world is clearly at our doorstep, we must ask if we are doing enough to actually make this happen.
* * *
I think it’s clear that most of what is happening in and around the American experiment demands particular attention to how we manage our political, economic and social selves. And it only makes practical sense to include our ties to the nature of capitalism. To this end, I would encourage you to ask your favorite columnist about his/her thoughts on the matter. I imagine you would like to know what they might say, and I would certainly be interested in their response as well.