January 26, 2006
-
MAJORS: Media Studies 101, Sociology 101, Political Science 101
COURSE: Values in politics, society, and film
Today, I want to talk about an inspiring op-ed piece in the Times by David Brooks. The article focussed on one reason for the Democrats inability to gain power in Washington DC. One reason, he said, is that the big hearts of most liberals have been combined with a false view of how bad things are in American society. The division between the lower-class majority and the upper-class minority that wields its financial power, which is the basis of many Democratic causes, is possibly exaggerated (yes…I’m fairly sure this guy is the lone conservative on the Times op-ed pages, but, hear him through!). Moving on, Brooks notes that Democrats have made economics their core issue. By addressing issues like taxes and budgets, welfare and income gaps, Dems hoped to become the party for the poor, and this would lead to their rise to power. Since this hasn’t happened, we know something in that equation is off.
Brooks argues that another problem with the Democratic party is that they believe that Republicans, knowing their economics hurt the poor and favor the rich, have turned to cultural values to make up for this gap in economic values. Brooks notes, however, that many voters don’t view the two value systems as separate. Or maybe, many people view cultural values as something that is even more important than economic values. Do people spend their days worrying about their jobs getting outsourced and their wages staying stagnant (economic values), or do they worry that their communities are not safe places to live, that divorce has become the norm, that violence is glorified (cultural values).
Basically…the question is, have the Democrats come to worship money (economic values), while ignoring the reality of people’s lives (cultural values)? As Brooks puts it, the Dems have become cultural libertarians, leaving culture and values completely out of government. He continues that in their absence, conservatives have filled the void, much to the detriment of Democrats.
Since the re-election of Bush in 2004, Dems have caught on to the fact that many voters consider cultural values to be important. In response, they have worked to transform economic values into cultural values. Democrats have begun to argue that protecting the poor, protecting wages, protecting and strengthening unions, spending more money on important social issues, protecting Social Security, protecting people’s health, are cultural values. Democrats (and I’m generalizing here), have said, “if you think abortion and gay rights are cultural values, espeically if that’s coming from your religious backgrounds, than you should be equally convinced that our economic values are cultural as well.”
I believe we are moving down the right path by talking about values, but need to also talk about our culture and lifestyles. What does it mean to be American? What is the new American dream? What lifestyles, and communities, do we want for America? What kind of schools? Clearly…many of these are local issues. I work and spend most of my time in New York City, so my concern with George W. Bush isn’t that he reaches out to NYC, so much as he doesn’t interfere w/ how we do business here. We have Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. George Pataki to concern ourselves with.
But…I do believe that political leaders on all levels do have the potential to shape culture. The combination of partisan politics and entertainment driven media that picks up only extreme political soundbites, has had a detrimental effect on the culture of this country. If you were to equate America to an enourmous family of about 300million, or however many people live here, it would be similar to a family of 4, where the brother and sister haven’t spoken to each other in years, and the mother and father get drunk every night and throw plates at each other. What this family needs is a good ol’ fashion sit-down, come to grips with our abusive past, our problems with communication, our different needs, and resolve to enjoy each others’ company.
I watched an amazing movie last night from 1980, called Ordinary People. I’m not a huge movie buff, but back in its time this movie brought home many awards, and featured Mary Tyler Moore (who i’m mostly familiar with from a Weezer song). The story is a hard-hitting tale of a family that lost one of its sons in a boating accident. The son who survived battles with severe depression and suicidal tendencies, and the story follows his life, as well as those of his parents who also are struggling with the loss of their son, the depression of their living son, and their own battles to keep their marriage alive.
The title of this movie, I felt, draws out a lot. This family, like so many, is comprised of “ordinary people.” People with hopes, and flaws, people with struggles psychologically, and socially. We ride this wave of struggle with these characters, and begin to realize that the “world” is just this family, times several billion people on Earth. We are all, everyone of us, ordinary people.
It is rare, to see ordinary people in politics, talking about ordinary people things. To me, the role of government should, amongst other things, be to address the mental well-being of its ordinary people. Conservatives have been trying to do this with their “cultural values,” and now Democrats have been trying to do this with their “economic/cultural values.”
What David Brooks’ article, and this movie Ordinary People, made me realize, is that inevitably, politics and society must shift to address the concerns of ordinary people. In order to do so, the ordinary people who work in politics need to recognize that they are ordinary people too! Beyond their policy decisions, they must lead by example. There are currently 0, if there ever were any, role models in modern society. I’m not talking about kids idolozing Teen Idols or MTV Real World casts. I’m talking about people who have figured out the universal cultural values of family, friends, and community. That’s what politics is lacking…leaders who can build community, or play a role in building community.
Ultiamtely, and most importantly, we must never forget that community doesn’t come from Washington, it comes from us…ordinary people. Community is not, as Brooks would agree, comprised of economic factors. There are thriving communities in 3rd world countries. They may lack the health resrouces, the shelter resources, and the economic and technological resources that American’s have, but they have community. And with community, comes peace of mind.
I am in the midst of brainstorming a massive project about community. It’s likely to be a lifelong project, but with tangible markers along the way. I have been working on this project sporadically and with mixed results since college, but I believe I have finally started to make some ground. What I am referring to is building a community of discussion. When you look around today, you see these communities growing, and I hope to contribute. I’m referring to blogs, and book clubs, and community groups. America has always had strong communities, but, I believe the idea of community has been lost a bit. And…I know I now need to go back to reading Robert Putnam, whose books “Bowling Alone,” and “Better Together: Restoring the American Community,” I was assigned to read last year as part of an internship, but at the time I got bored at page 2. I think those books might clarify what kind of project i hope to undertake.
your thoughts…
Comments (4)
Ordinary People is an excellent book as well. It reads pretty quickly too.
~Bethany
I really like the new format of your weblog, with the self-assigned ”coursework” and “assignments.” For some reason I am not receiving my subscriptions to your blog most of the time, so I forget to come check it out. I’ll have to figure out why that is.
I agree that we are all “ordinary people” and that this is where the focus of life needs to be. We ordinary people need to be left alone to live our ordinary lives in the ways that we find most meaningful and useful. We have too many “experts” (supposedly non-ordinary people) telling us how to live, and they need to leave us alone to figure it out for ourselves, or at least stop talking long enough to listen to our side of the story. Not that I believe that “every man [should be] for himself” and “to heck with what anyone else thinks,” or that no one should ever have or need help. But the help should come from the ground, on equal level, not from above – not from atop any sort of heirarchy that places some of us in a position as “above the ordinary.” It just isn’t true. We need more listening, conversing and discussing, and less mandating, advising, and talking down to.
I get Life Learning magazine, but I’ve never seen their sister publication. That’s interesting — I wonder why they’d send it to your office. Travel is one of the best methods of learning.
“There are currently 0, if there ever were any, role models in modern society.”
C’mon Dan. Do you put these little phrases in here just to bait me?
You either aren’t looking hard enough, or have too strict a definition of a “role model”. In my heart, a role model is anyone seeking to help mankind; striving for compassion over apathy, peace over strife, unity over division, and striving for those things in the face of a world that seldom rewards such “backwards” values. In the course of a lifetime, life and the world batter people and strip them down, often leaving them jaded, bitter, and disillusioned. Anyone who can retain and actively practice benevolent qualities, especially in light of the lack of worldly reinforcement, has attained role model status by my definition.
Perhaps you have mentally set the bar too high and expect role models to acheive national fame. Role models are more often the “ordinary people” of the world. Possibly, society in general has also lost scope of what a role model truly is, mistakenly expecting fame to cohabitate with virtue.
“politics and society must shift to address the concerns of ordinary people.”
Politics and society already DO address the concerns of ordinary people…to the extent they are capable of. Politics (and society) is unable to address each individual’s needs, chiefly because the concerns of one person often conflict with the needs of another. So society (and politics) must evaluate the needs of the majority of the people, and act accordingly. Or that’s the theory anyway (it sometimes breaks down in the application).
Have a good weekend.