Philosophical Food Fight

"Armchair bullshit, masquerading as philosophy: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?hp
9:50 PM Jun 13th"
via web

jcohen570

That is the reply that Josh Cohen (Stanford) - advocate of democratic deliberation - Tweeted (of all things!) to this post written by J.M. Bernstein (New School) at The New York Times philosophy blog. In the initial post, Bernstein offered an analysis (inspired by Hegel and Freud) of the anger embodied among members of the "The Party" crowd. He followed up here. Philosopher Brian Leiter (Univ. of Chicago) seconds Cohen here. And there is a rambling commentary here at Mother Jones as well. Now, I hardly put myself out as a model of tolerance and civil exchange, and my own theoretical leanings actually tend to converge with Leiter and Cohen, however their replies to Bernstein are not a great advert for doing philosophy (or political theory, or politics) in public.

I think there is a real and important question about why the radical right has managed to coordinate opposition to Obama around a set of ludicrous claims - like his place of birth or the notion, all evidence to the contrary, that he is a "socialist." Sure, there are lots of media politics at play. And the Mother Jones piece reiterates the findings that (as I suggested here) "the 'tea party' crowd tend to be ... a bunch of old, economically well-off, white guys who are 'angry' and 'pessimistic' because they think the government is paying too much attention to the needs of the poor and minorities and not enough to the rich!" Of course, that is not the only demographic among the members of the tea party 'movement'; it takes all types, I suppose.

Having said all that, what happens when you talk sense to people? What happens when you point out that the sources of political polarization in American politics derive from rising inequality and right-wing political strategy [1]? What happens when you point out that the Bush tax cuts and duplicitous military adventurism combine to underwrite the vast bulk of our current and future budget deficits [2]? What happens when you point out that redistributive spending tends to go primarily to red states [3]? Well ... there is some reason to think that despite the fear, anger and frustration that inform too much of American politics, there is some indication [4] [5] [6] that lots of voters are pretty damned sensible. They prefer to trim the military budget and raise taxes on the wealthy rather than simply slash social spending!

How does this connect to our point of departure? Well, Cohen and Leiter might have simply suggested that matters may not be nearly so bleak as Bernstein suggests, that there is reason to believe that citizens can indeed sort things out pretty reasonably despite emotional vicissitudes. (I actually think that we can dispense with the Freud and Hegel in Bernstein's initial piece and agree nonetheless that part of what has been going on is that individualistic Americans have indeed been forced to confront their interdependence and their vulnerability.) What would've been wrong with that?

Buddhist Economics.

***This is a long post but I hope worth it***

By the way, I find it ironic that Nepal has put the non-materialist Buddha upon money (above). It's probably a commemorative thing but still It's kind of odd given his teachings on giving up materiel possessions.

We currently find ourselves in a global economic crisis. There aren't many in the world who can say that they haven't been affected in some way by these difficult times. Yet in between hyperventilating fits I am realizing that I knew this was coming. It's a cyclical thing.

Buddha certainly saw this coming all those thousands of years ago. I find myself depressed now and then that the world is in such terrible times but then I remember that this is samsara and thus the world has always been in such terrible times. The reality hasn't changed but my concept of what is reality has changed.

My mind wants so badly for things to never change and yet that is impossible nor is it desired in the long run. Imagine a world where nothing ever changed--would such a world even be possible? I say no. However I digress. But that doesn't mean that we have to surrender to the suffering. The world is just as amazing, beautiful, beneficial and worthwhile too. We might have to look a little harder because pain is often the loudest crying baby in the mind but the good is there too to be sure.

I already knew that the economic goods times wouldn't last. The "Laissez les bon temps roulez" (let the good times roll) bubble has burst as Buddha would have warned us all. I think he would have warned us to save (even if it's only a little) money for these inevitable crashes. Yet saving means putting a muzzle on our desires because the mind would say, "Put it on a credit card then you won't have to worry about not having the money and you can have that [insert material item that I'll tire with in two months].

Not so fast. Buddha would I think stress mindfulness as in all areas of life. If we are mindful of our money, mindful of the good and not so good about it as well as being mindful of the fleeting nature of it then perhaps we will be more committed to living within our means. I think Buddha would advise us that credit cards are the Earthly, material versions of karma--sooner or later they must be paid off for there is a consequence to every action. In a way credit cards are worse than karma because karma doesn't (as far as I know) accrue interest!

Buddha might say that despite our best efforts and now matter how fiscally responsible we might be that sooner or later a devastating blow will hit us. Life is anything but predictable. Such is the nature of this existence he would gently remind my exasperated mind. I imagine him softly, slowly advising me of this and imagining that it would calm me down like pouring cold water over raging hot coals.

Buddha teaches us that we are all interconnected, which in economic terms means that we take care of the needs of our brothers and sisters more. That means perhaps living a more modest lifestyle so that others might have basic human needs such as hospital care, food and shelter. This isn't a popular one in our CEO, "capitalism on steroids" society but if we were to look out more for the needs of others than we wouldn't need so much ourselves.

Yes, maybe what I'm speaking of is a utopia but still we can try our best to share and travel through this life together so that the greater good can be achieved. In the west we look at a person's accomplishments in their job and income but that is a false assessment of what is valuable because that is all going away no matter which bank you put it all in. And because it is based upon greed, which is a desire that brings much false happiness. We need to focus more on the Gross Domestic Happiness more than GDP such as in Bhutan.

We would also do our society a lot of good to put more emphasis and value upon people and time together with those people than making buckets of money. And upon nature, which is (if we are totally in the moment) one of the most wonderful things to experience and you don't need much money to enjoy it. Maybe we should spend more time listening to the birds and the sound of the wind caressing the vocal cords of the trees making them whisper through the air than getting the new iPod model accessory.

Another thing he'd probably tell me is that I don't have to have all the things that I think I need for living life well. I'd be reminded of the simple monk who despite owning basically only his robe and his bowl is happier than probably most people with all the bells and whistles of modern, material life. It seems so liberating to cast off all your possessions and walk a simple path of being present. When I am present I realize that in reality all that I need is the Dharma because it is the I Ching for all of life's questions and dilemas. Well, that and a nice plate of stir-fried vegetables and a bowl of sticky rice now and then (wink).

One final note, which comes right back to that impermanence of all things mentioned in the beginning of this post. We need to realize I think that we are in an economic transition period right now all over the world. The old paradigm is dying out but we need not be crushed by the change because while the change is bringing turmoil it is also bring new industries such as the green economy.

It is an exploding industry that will not only give people good paying jobs but also let them live Right Livelihood all while healing the planet for future generations. We need to embrace this opportunity with our collective energies. Perhaps we just need to shift our thinking to see a better, greener economy that has been with us since the first winds blew across our beautiful blue planet. It has been with us since the first rays of the sun kissed our Earth and when the water first churned to create energy. The new economy is literally right underneath our feet--in nature. We help nature and nature helps us. So those are some of my thoughts.

~Peace to all beings~