Shared Sacrifice and Social Responsibility

There are times in history where people are faced with the choices that determine the future of their civilization. The Greeks chose leaders who espoused the ideals of democracy but acted like the dictators they so apparently despised. The Romans fell victim to greed and unfettered expansion that bankrupted their empire. The colonial Americans took arms against the greatest empire the world had ever seen for the sake of ideals and almost nothing else. These choices can can propel people to greatness or doom them to the criticism of historians.

The United States has faced these choices in the past. Astoundingly we have made the correct choices a majority of the time. We abolished slavery, embraced civil rights, and defeated the ambitions of leaders who wanted to conquer the world. And each of those decisions were rooted in the preservation of our ideals. The ideals that were expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. They were eloquently advocated by our forefathers in the Federalist Papers and confirmed by de Tocqueville half a century later. Each generation's conviction to those ideals have been tested. Except our own, until now.

Electing an African American president is not the endgame in our pursuit of a more perfect union. It may be a testament to how far the Civil Rights Movement reached and how much of a premium our generation has put on merit based achievement, but we haven't had to sacrifice anything on our journey. We've been given everything we want and have been told that we can have whatever we want. Our generation defines success not in leadership, responsibility, or sacrifice, but by the amount of dollars we earn. We define our achievements in terms of the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, and the success of our investment portfolios.

Our generation is starting out with less than our parents. Social security and the welfare system that our grandparents have relied on for financial security is nearly bankrupt. We will have to rely on ourselves more than any American generation in the past. But we can't do it alone. We cannot succeed on individual greed and solitary achievement. We cannot blame the government for all our ills and then shrug our shoulders in apathy at the same time. Change doesn't come merely by casting a ballot. As President Obama said on Tuesday night:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

We must redefine the American dream to fit the strugges of our generation. We cannot be content with living our day to day lives doing something we hate merely to earn a dollar and exist in the limbo of mediocrity. Our generation needs to strive for something more than the 2 car garage house and a 40 hour workweek. We need to realize that the true spirit of patriotism is working to improve the country we live in and the lives of its citizens. As JFK so eloquently put it: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

What use is a mediocre corporate salary when there is no satisfaction that accompanies it? What is life when you help nobody but yourself? The need to survive is understandable, but that need doesn't involve a high definition television or a fancy foreign sports car. It doesn't involve the rampant consumerism and reckless disregard for financial propriety that plague us. It involves the idea that we all have to sacrifice something to make the world we live in a better place. It involves taking responsibility for the shortcomings of our social structure and doing something, anything, to remedy it.

These aren't the tenants of socialism or communism but the basic principles behind the social contract we subscribe to by being citizens of the United States. They are the adhesive that binds us to the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. President Obama's message isn't that he is some sort of messiah promising to lead us out of the cave and into the light. His message is that we have to take the reins of leadership into our own hands in order to fix the problems that this country faces and that we complain about incessantly. We have to abandon the poverty of ambition that has befallen our generation and take arms to fight for something greater: the idea that we rise and fall together, as one.

That is the choice our generation and our successors face. That is what will propel us into the annals of greatness or throw us to the wolves of historic criticism. We are being tested on the same measure as our forefathers were, on our convictions to the ideals of the founding fathers. Let's hope we don't disappoint.

Thank You Senator, But I Respectfully Disagree

As you've probably figured out by now, I'm pretty biased to the left and there is hardly any love for me to lose for the Republicans. I've supported Senator Obama since the early primary season for president and continue to do so through election day. However, I have some disagreements with two of Obama's policies which I find troubling.

The first, and foremost, is the protection of the free market economy. Although that sentence used "protection" and "free market" in the span of a few words, it actually makes sense. Senator Obama, and McCain for that matter, have both spit the words of populism from the pulpit this entire election season. Its all about the middle class, protecting domestic jobs, and doing what is best for main street. Its one way of getting elected, but not the method of governance that I'd agree with.

With respect to the markets, I'm very confident that an Obama presidency will not create protectionist barriers on its own accord. If the rest of the world, reeling from the global financial crisis, were to engage in protectionism, he may have no choice but to do so as well. However, many developing nations and the EU make a living off the globalized economy and wouldn't dare think about protecting domestic markets at the cost of export sales. The only economic policy I worry about from the Obama administration is providing tax incentives to keep jobs in the United States. In other words, create a tax penalty for outsourcing jobs.

Outsourcing gets a bad name around these parts because we view it as stealing domestic jobs. However, what we don't see is the decrease in prices that outsourcing brings to the consumer. Now, I'm no proponent of trickle down, but when a company finds cheaper labor, they will reduce prices and still make a hefty profit. This is fact. Every industry that has outsourced its product has seen a fall in real prices over the past 8 years. Those that are forced to remain domestic (college tuition, movie tickets, etc.) have gone up in real cost. If we are to advance as an economy we must create jobs that former laborers could perform and high tech jobs that pay better wages.

Senator Obama is completely correct in asserting that government needs to take a role in job creation over the next few years. With recession looming large, it is imperative to run a small budget deficit to institute Keynsian adjustments. The private industry isn't going to fix roads, build schools, or redesign the power grid to send renewable power to population centers. Infrastructure and education have always been charges of the state. The government needs to start programs that rebuild roads and the power grid. These require the type of skills that former auto and factory workers have. We can employ the currently unemployed.

As we provide jobs for the industrial generation that preceded us, we should also foster the service industry that follows. The government needs to take a better role in educating the youth of this country. Senator Obama has placed education at the forefront of his political agenda. He plans to invest in early childhood education so that no child enters elementary schools with deficient skills. He wants to give teachers better pay and hold them to higher standards. This is all very good but Senator Obama also prescribes to the culture of poverty. This is something that needs to fundamentally change in our country's view of education.

The culture of poverty states that people from low income backgrounds don't care about education because there is no value placed on it. Parents don't care because they fail to show up to conferences and students don't care because parents don't show an interest. As a result, teachers stop caring about the educational welfare of their students because they feel helpless. Why should I try to teach these kids when they come to class already not caring? The culture of poverty has been proven as a statistical myth.

Senator Obama wants to be paternalistic and impress upon the families of poor students the value of education. Although this is estimable, it isn't very practical. Most of the time parents in low income neighborhoods don't go to conferences or "don't show interest" in their kid's education because they just don't have the time. These people are usually single parents who work multiple jobs in order to make a living wage. They cannot risk getting fired to attend school functions because the jobs they have are in demand in their neighborhood. If they miss work, there is always someone else to take their spot. The just cannot afford to care.

The government should place stricter guidelines on teachers to meet so that they simply don't give up on teaching children. When low income students are asked what their biggest gripe about school is, they overwhelmingly say that they aren't challenged enough . The teachers just don't teach them anything worth learning. When the teachers take that away, then there is no point in coming to school anymore. If the students think they are wasting 8 hours of their day at school, then they simply won't show up and can end up on the street or in jail. So unless we can enact some sort of overarching socioeconomic reform, the government needs to focus more on teaching and less on values.