Bail Out the U.S. Auto Industry?

In the wake of the $700B+ bailout for the financial sector, there seems to be a lot of grumbling about the possibility of loaning U.S. automakers $25B to get them through the economic downturn. People on both sides of the political spectrum can be heard to protest this violation of free-market principles, the heart of Western capitalism. The rationale goes something like this: "If they'd been spending money developing the fuel-efficient cars that everyone wants, they wouldn't be in this mess. They deserve to go under!" The problem with this argument is that until the price of gas very recently reached $3.50 a gallon, fuel-efficient vehicles were not what Americans wanted, as evidenced by the incredible number of oversized gas-guzzling vehicles on the road today.

The fact of the matter is that U.S. auto manufacturers have made exactly what we've asked them to, based on our buying habits. That they are now on the ropes is our fault as much as it is anyone else's. Consider this: With the major quality problems of the 1980s behind them*, they've managed to maintain nearly 50% of the U.S. market share in the face of formidable foreign opponents like Honda and Toyota. This doesn't sound to me like a dinosaur of an industry that's ready to gasp it's last. What's really happening here is that the retreat of consumer spending is putting extreme pressure on many industries, especially those manufacturing high-priced durable goods. But this sudden dip in demand isn't because the products in question aren't wanted by consumers - it's because the recent indiscretions in the financial sector have got everyone avoiding big-ticket purchases.

Setting aside the likelihood that it would further deepen this recession, is it fair to let companies that employ hundreds of thousands of American workers go bankrupt because mortgage bankers were so blinded by greed that they worked against even their own best interests? Is it right to put adherence to an economic theory before the welfare of the American populace? And yes, the majority of us are at serious risk if we continue down the global free-market survival-of-the-fittest route. Because we've reached the point where we have very few industries left in this country, and those that do remain are being rapidly dismantled and shipped overseas. And what will happen then, when we have nothing but a service economy left? We can't all work at Wal-Mart and McDonalds, and even if we could we wouldn't be able to afford anything but the cheap, low-quality products sold by our own employers.

No, we need to wake up and realize that the best interests of the American people are not served by adhering to a system that measures success by how much money corporations earn. Rather, we should be using the standard of living of our citizens as the metric that guides us. And the first step in that direction should be to retain and even expand the number of well-paying jobs for non-college-educated workers in this country. Because a middle-class with a high standard of living guarantees plenty of consumer spending for the quality products we should be making right here in the U.S.A.

I say we should lend a hand to the domestic auto industry and help ensure our children's standard of living.

*I know about the quality improvements because I worked at J.D. Power and Associates in the 1990s and saw the cap close between Japanese and American model vehicles, according to consumer opinion.

What America Was Really Meant to Be

In arguing for a policy that they want (or against one that they don't want), people will often state that we must (or mustn't) make the change in question because America is "supposed to be" a certain way. For example, if the issue at hand is whether or not to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a government building, you might hear it stated that "America was founded as a Christian nation" to bolster their pro-display point of view. Or in argument against progressive policies, you might hear "America wasn't meant to be a socialist country".

Upon closer examination, most of these statements don't hold up, and there are two reasons for this. First, the founders gave us the ability to pass laws and even amend the Constitution should we choose. What America is "supposed to be" is whatever its citizens decide. So if we want to move away from free-market capitalism and toward socialism, we can collectively make that choice. In fact, even the basic rights defined in the Bill of Rights can be amended or repealed, since they themselves are simply Constitutional amendments. Not that I'm advocating we do that, nor do I think it would be likely to succeed if attempted. But the fact that we could do it shows just how much control Americans have over the form of their government.

Second, it's fallacious to make nearly any categorical statement about what the Founding Fathers' intentions were, because they were men like any others with opinions that varied, sometimes greatly. In cases where we today debate the meaning of a particular phrase or passage in the foundational documents of our nation, I'm sure there was contention among those in Congress at the time it was adopted as well. And from that time such differences of opinion have polarized us. In fact, no sooner was the government established than the tug-of-war began between those with different visions for the nation. Very quickly these visions became the basis for the first political parties, the Federalists advocating a strong central government and the Democratic-Republicans fighting to keep power in the hands of the states. And with only very brief exceptions, such factions have continued to battle over our direction ever since.

We have always disagreed over what America should be. That such differences can exist among the citizens of our nation and not tear us apart is a testament to the system of government the Founding Fathers gave us. They made us a nation of laws and through those laws created the mechanism through which we can, collectively, determine what the Unites States of America really is.

What Is Un-American, Anyway?

While I was surfing the Web today, I came across a blog post on the topic of President-Elect Obama's citizenship. A comment made in response to the post said,

"I’m sure he will eventually prove that he is a citizen though, but what he can’t prove is that he is truly American in his heart and mind. Obama has constantly discarded American values, that recognize, equality, freedom, opportunity and hard work. He is as Un-American as they come there."

Not so long ago, this cry of un-Americanism would have been regarded by most as ridiculous, or at a minimum unworthy of serious consideration. However, since the September 11th bombings, those in power have used this label to smear nearly anyone who questions their policies. And unfortunately, because of people's natural fear in the wake of the attacks, they've managed to turn many Americans against their fellow citizens.

I agree with the author of the comment that freedom and equality are American values; in fact they are the defining American values because they are what the Founding Fathers intended this government to embody above all else. But what he seems to have missed, despite it being right in front of his face, is that by trying to classify those who hold a different point of view as somehow "not American", he is violating those most basic values himself. So when it comes to being un-American, I contend that those who brand their countrymen for exercising their rights are standing near the head of the line.

California Bans Gay Marriage

This is a sad day for me. California has chosen to institutionalize discrimination in the state Constitution. As a native of the state, I had expected more from my fellow Californians. Although we are often a leader in progressive thought and policies, there is a mean and selfish streak that occasionally emerges, and apparently this is one of those times. The last time I remember feeling this way was in 1994 when Proposition 187, the anti-immigration measure, passed. Fortunately, that was later overturned in the courts.

Unfortunately, that won't happen this time around because Proposition 8 amended the state Constitution. What many voters don't seem to understand is that the Constitution defines the basic rights of all citizens. It is not a document that should be amended without a great deal of deliberation, and this election has clearly shown why. A fundamental right of all citizens as confirmed by state Supreme Court has now been eliminated for members of a single minority group. Where the law previously treated all loving couples equally, it now discriminates against some. To my way of thinking, it is as if we had passed a Constitutional amendment disallowing black citizens from riding in the front of public buses or drinking from public water fountains.

Proponents of this measure argued that we should "save traditional marriage". What are they talking about? Traditional marriages were under no threat whatsoever. There was nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that curtailed the ability of opposite-sex couples to marry, nor were existing married couples at risk of losing any of the rights or privileges they enjoyed under the law. Perhaps voters were simply ignorant, and didn't understand that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Allowing same-sex couples to marry under the law did not require any church or religious faction to perform or recognize such marriages. A religious marriage is between the couple and God, and the state has no say over that whatsoever. But rather than being satisfied with the marital bond they can form before God - something most churches won't condone for gay couples - California's voters have chosen to selfishly deny those couples the right to a legal bond as well. Shame on us.

Obama Signals Change

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency tonight is a forceful repudiation of the divisive fear-mongering that's been the hallmark of the modern Republican era. Obama showed that it is in fact possible to earn people's votes through the force of your vision, rather than through the fear you create about your opponent. It is my great hope that President Obama will lead with the same optimism and inclusive approach that we've seen during his campaign. We need a president for all of us, not just for 50% of us.

Welcome to My Blog

I'm creating this blog so that I can capture my thoughts on a variety of subjects, primarily within the realms of philosophy, politics and religion. The name of the blog comes from my observation that we in the United States have all but abandoned rationality in our public discourse, having replaced it with unreasoning emotion. That's not to say that I won't make emotionally based statements here, because feelings are important and should be taken into account in our dealings with each other and our approach to public policy. After all, even the Founding Fathers recognized the "pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental human right. But we've reached a point where a constructive national conversation is impossible as fear and hatred are propagated by those who would manipulate and control us. Politicians, religious leaders and corporate giants goad us into acting against our own self-interest, preying on not only our emotions but our ignorance. It's time that we start using our brains and realizing our human potential, for the benefit of ourselves and our society.