RIP the Twinkie, a nauseating bit of plastic and grease masquerading as an edible treat.
Troublemakers to the end, the Twinkie and Ding-Dong and their “gang” of faux-foods have become yet another contested story in the ferocious and largely fact-free political debate over economic policy. According to the Right, the demise of the Hostess company was brought about by those dastardly unions–at least, the one that refused to accept a second major cut in wages and benefits in order to keep the struggling company afloat. Liberal blogs, on the other hand, place most of the blame on the venture capital company that bought the operation out of its last bankruptcy, pointing out that nowhere in the management structure it put in place can anyone be found who actually ever baked anything.
Now, I have to agree with the liberals that asking for a second round of wage concessions after tripling the pay of the CEO was bad form, if nothing else. Especially since the company was in bankruptcy. But come on, people–there’s plenty of blame to go around whenever a business fails. In this case, let’s choose capitalism.
Markets work because they satisfy consumer demands for goods and services. Markets are inherently risky because consumers often change their preferences, and companies that are not sufficiently nimble at meeting those changed preferences lose market share. At the end of the day, that’s what happened here.
When I still practiced law, I remember another lawyer remarking that the risks of the market system were the reason for the bankruptcy laws; in order to have a system that incentivizes risk, you need a mechanism that allows people to start over when those risks don’t pan out.
The market for snack food has–thankfully–changed. We Americans may be fatter than ever, but we’re also guiltier than ever about eating processed foods that we (now) know are terrible for us. Changes in the food industry have given us choices, including stuff that actually tastes good, and we’ve gotten more selective. The natural foods movement is growing. People actually read the nutritional panels that our socialist government requires.
I was asked to talk to a group of scholarship students yesterday about effecting social change and achieving social justice.
I began by sharing a bit of my personal history with social change (there should be some lessons to be learned from living through a significant period of American social history). In my case, I grew up Jewish during the 50s and 60s; I watched the civil rights movement “up close and personal;” I took part in the women’s movement; and I span the time between when “gay” meant “happy” and no one ever uttered the word “homosexual” and the current fight for same-sex marriage. So I have some perspective. And as I told the students, I can attest to the fact social change is not only possible, it’s inevitable.
Change, of course, is not synonymous with improvement. I’m absolutely convinced that if we want to create progress–good change–our efforts must be framed in ways that are consistent with what I like to call our “constitutional culture.”
“Constitutional culture” is simply a shorthand for the recognition that legal systems shape worldviews. The attitudes and expectations of people ruled by the Taliban are vastly different from the attitudes of people living in a country that emphasizes values of personal liberty and political equality.
The values incorporated in the American legal system, fortunately, are entirely consistent with an emphasis on social justice.
In the wake of the horrific shooting at Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s Town Hall in Tucson, PBS’ Mark Shields made an “only in America” observation that illustrates the point. Shields said:
“This is America, where a white Catholic male Republican judge was murdered on his way to greet a Democratic Jewish woman member of Congress, who was his friend. Her life was saved initially by a 20-year old Mexican-American gay college student, and eventually by a Korean-American combat surgeon, all eulogized by our African-American President.”
There, in a nutshell, is what most of us would consider the triumph of American culture—the fact that the nation has moved, however haltingly, toward a vision that allows all of us to be members in good standing of our society, equal participants in our national story, whatever our religious belief, skin color, sexual orientation or national origin. What makes us all Americans isn’t based upon any of those individual identities, but upon our allegiance to what I like to call “the American Idea”—a particular worldview based upon an understanding of government and citizenship that grew out of the Enlightenment and was subsequently enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
As I told the students, my argument is pretty simple: Social justice has to be approached from within that worldview, and arguments for social change need to be framed in ways that are consistent with it—or it won’t work.
Take the recent votes on same-sex marriage. The four victories at the polls on Nov. 6th were an exciting sign that public opinion is moving in the direction of equality and social justice. Of course, fundamental rights should never have been put to a vote of the electorate in the first place. No one got to vote on whether the government should recognize my marriage, and it is constitutionally improper to give me the power to vote on anyone else’s.
The Bill of Rights marks off certain areas of our lives where government doesn’t belong—areas where we get to make our own decisions about our lives. Very few Americans seem to understand that in our system, the issue isn’t whether the book you are reading is good or bad—it’s who gets to decide what book you read. It isn’t whether you are praying to the proper God, or praying at all—it’s who gets to decide whether and to whom you pray. Constitutionally, the issue isn’t who you marry—it’s the propriety of allowing government to decide who you marry.
It’s because our system is based upon protecting our personal autonomy—our right to decide for ourselves how we shall live our lives—that social change so often begins with the courts. When majorities insist on making decisions that are not theirs to make, we need the courts to step in and remind us that in our system, fundamental rights are not subject to popular passions. Theoretically, our courts should all be “activist” when majorities try to make decisions they are not entitled to make, but the truth is, courts inevitably reflect the social attitudes of their times. Brown v. Board wouldn’t have been decided as it was unless popular sentiment had already moved. The fact that we have a judicial system charged with protecting minorities doesn’t relieve us of the duty to create the attitudes that enable the courts to do their job.
That brings us to the importance of framing. If we want to change social attitudes, and produce a cultural environment in which desirable change can occur, we need to frame the issues in ways that appeal to our sense of what it means to be an American.
Successive groups of outsiders have done that. They’ve staked their claims as Americans to equal treatment under the law. In the process, they’ve not only won social acceptance–they’ve made America’s Constitutional culture stronger–and life better and more just for us all.
I had a fascinating discussion yesterday with a scholar who studies the impact and use of digital media in teaching civic knowledge and skills.
Despite the widespread concern about use of the Internet to construct our favored realities–to build a “bubble” consisting of our preferred “facts” and interpretations–his research suggests there is less “bubble living” online than in the physical world, where we often choose to live and move in neighborhoods of the like-minded.
The Internet has facilitated what he calls “communities of interest”–Harry Potter or Star Trek fans, knitters, collectors, etc. Those communities include folks with varied political views, and political discussions come up in their interactions more often than we might think.
For those of us worried about the demise of the daily newspaper, where readers would encounter subjects and points of view that differed from their own, this research is reason to cheer. It also should remind us that there is so much we do not know about the ways that Facebook, Twitter et al are shaping social interactions and building different kinds of community.
It’s also well to recognize the ways in which geography can insulate us. Look at those maps of red and blue states. Or ponder the observation of the older student in my media class, who noted that she’d grown up in Martinsville, in what she described as a “racist bubble” composed of neighbors who all held the same attitudes about African-Americans and other people of color. As she pointed out, the Internet allows people to escape those kinds of bubbles.
Reality is more complicated than we think. Fortunately.
I keep thinking about that old song that began “Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds….” I don’t remember most of the lyrics, but it ended with something to the effect that the singer was longing for the day when “our two different worlds are one.”
Yeah–me too.
In the wake of the election, in addition to the usual recriminations and finger pointing, there has been a wave of “petitions” to the White House, demanding the right of states to secede. The conspiracy nuts have been working overtime, generating dark, brooding theories about Obama’s plans to destroy America. Evidently, his incomprehensible victory at the polls is the sign of the apocalypse. Or something.
Meanwhile, in that other world–the one I thankfully inhabit–there are signs that the fever has broken. Congressional Republicans are sending grudging signals that they may consider cooperating to do the public’s business. Rightwing pundits are sounding a bit less intransigent–Hannity is “evolving” on immigration, and Bill Kristol concedes that a small increase in millionaires’ tax rate probably won’t kill the economy. Janesville, Wisconsin–home of Ryan the Rigid–just passed a ordinance extending domestic partner benefits to city and library employees. (It passed 6-1.) Little by little, inhabitants of the real world are going about the business of reconciliation.
What does that say about the “other” world? The one where the Kenyan Socialist Muslim is plotting to confiscate all the guns and destroy liberty as we know it?
There’s a theory that during periods of rapid social change, when societies are experiencing “paradigm shifts” to accommodate those changes, significant numbers of people are unable to make the conceptual change. As their existing worldviews get more and more “out of sync” with the world around them, their behaviors become more and more “maladaptive.” They are less and less able to cope with the world as it is, and their response to that cognitive dissonance gets more bizarre.
Eventually, of course, those who cannot adapt–disproportionately folks in my own advancing age bracket–will die off. And for a while–at least until the next paradigm shift–those two different worlds will be one.
A friend who shares my concerns about Indiana’s governance for the next few years sent me a news link intended to cheer me up–sort of. His point was that it could be worse. We could live in Texas.
Over the years, when I have needed examples of truly bad policies as illustrations in my Law and Policy classes, Texas has often supplied those examples. I’d begun to think that the Texan fixation with secession may not be so misplaced; in fact, an amicable divorce was beginning to look pretty attractive. My friend’s link reinforced that opinion.
Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party in Texas, suggests in his newsletter that the state should have an “amicable divorce” from the “maggots” who re-elected Obama.
Morrison posted on his Facebook page his post-election thoughts: “We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity.”
“Texas was once its own country, and many Texans already think in nationalist terms about their state,” Morrison continued. “We need to do everything possible to encourage a long-term shift in thinking on this issue. Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years.”
Reached for comment by Bud Kennedy at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kent Batman, the chairman of the Hardin County Republican Party, said: “Wow.”
“OK, well — I guess I need to start taking a look at his newsletters,” Batman said.
This guy is an official of the Texas Republican Party. That’s bad enough. But even worse, the Chairman of the State Board of Education picked Morrison to screen the state’s public-school textbooks.
