Social Decay and the Middle Way

Are we regressing as a society to completely digital thinking? Must everything be black and white, right and wrong, good and evil? Zeros and ones?

When I look at the political landscape in this environment of impending presidential elections, I’m reminded that the country is fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (red and blue, respectively). While they aren’t truly polar opposites on the political scale, the are certainly closer to the middle than other, more eccentric political groups. It is amazing, however, that we ever get anything accomplished.

So today, I hereby proclaim a new political ideology that I shall call the Middle Way. All right, so it’s not really a new ideology - I stole it from Buddhism - but it would be new to the majority of people in this country. It shall be based upon the simple precept that truth will only be found where our collective perspectives coincide.

It is commonly accepted that a compromise is a lose-lose proposition. When two parties compromise, they sacrifice their positions to meet a middle ground. We must first and foremost dispel this for the sake of the greater good. If we are going to ever accomplish anything we must stop clinging to our polar positions with pride. It is time to respect the views and opinions of our “opponents” and begin the journey to the Middle Way. The fastest flow of the river is in the middle…

Of course, we’ll need a slogan… Rome wasn’t built in a day and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that cultural change is painstakingly slow. Members of the Middle Way answer the question “Is the glass half-empty or half-full?” by replying that “The glass is too big.” (Of course, I intend no offense to Buddhists, who might take a more philosophical approach.) So there it is: “The Middle Way...because the glass is too big.”

I know what you’re thinking… No, I’m not on drugs (unless my wife slipped something into my eggs this morning). It’s just that I’ve been worn down by divisive politics, divisive social commentary, and destructive criticism, in general. Has our myopia gotten so bad that it’s incurable? That we’ve become incapable of seeing the bigger picture?

I admit that 10 years ago I would have said, “Screw this! Why are we spending money to fix problems in foreign countries?” I was an isolationist, but largely because I couldn’t see the big picture. I lacked the perspective to realize that America, with one of the strongest economies in the world, had a significant impact on global economies and cultures. And the cultural impact is the one that has really hit home. As I learn about the perceptions of the billions of much less fortunate people in this world, I realize that we are a victim of our own success. “Corporate America”, while a distinctive group within our society, is axiomatic to a large part of the rest of the world. Consequently, we have fostered a sentiment of pathological jealousy that has risked our lives and the lives of others affiliated with us.

Let's take a common "big picture" issue that can seem to come to a satisfactory closure. How can we combat the simple economics of narcotic trafficking if we can’t offer an equitable alternative? The morality of it notwithstanding, (an issue I won’t begin to debate) the simple landscape of the situation reveals that if we destroy the cocaine, marijuana, and opium crops of Columbian farmers, we have effectively rendered them unemployed. And what do unemployed people do to feed and shelter their families? Anything they can…

Let’s take another simple example of foreign economics. Provide a country with tools and resources to instantiate twentieth century technology in their society and you’ve just created a new customer for services to support it. In addition, this customer can be served by the growing number of other global service providers. By creating a simple demand in a ‘burgeoning market’, you’ve substantiated the foundation of a global economy.

Want more “big picture”? Let’s talk about “trickle down economics”. It’s a term that was popular during the Reagan administration, but largely unpopular with the Middle Class. The oversimplified outline of this concept is based upon putting more money into the hands of the wealthiest so that they, in turn, will invest in the companies that employ the nation’s work force. By default, or so it seemed, the working Middle Class will then benefit from the company’s new-found cash reserves. Like many economic policies (communism, for example), it’s only flawed in its application. The key to making Reaganomics (as it was coined) work is the Labor Unions’ ability to squeeze those reserves out of the tight fists of company executives.

Now, while I’m at it, I’m going to return fire at those who find it necessary to vilify the “wealthiest 10%”. Let’s talk about the wealthy, shall we? In October 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report that showed to be among the wealthiest 20% a household need only to report an annual income of $88,000. To make the Top 10 List, you merely have to make $122,300. Scrape up another $44,200 (to sum to $166,500) and you be among the elite Top 5 percent!

While we’re at it, let’s talk about tax liability. Household incomes totaling $50K or more shoulder the burden of 92.8% of the federal income tax burden (under 2000 law). Change that number to $100K and the number drops to 67.8%. When the truth falls out, household incomes summing more than $200K per year bear 45.2% of the tax burden.

How about this:

• 7.8% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 10 percent and bear the burden of 62.1% of the Individual Income Tax Liability.(under 2000 law)


• 15.4% of the population are among the wealthiest Top 20 percent and bear the burden of 75.0% of the Individual Income Tax Liability. (under 2000 law)

You know, if these people continue to cast epithets at those who aspire to be wealthier, then where is the social incentive? Isn’t that what we aspire to in this country? To be wealthier?

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, by affiliation, but it is because I share the perspectives and views of both that I’m considered a Moderate…a member of the Middle Way.

Enough for now...