Democracy and Self-Determination

Imagine the world in 1776. Rather than the history we have come to know, a foreign country imposes arbitrary boundaries around a fledgling conception of the United States of America to serve its own purposes. The European white settlers, imported African slaves and indigenous local native American Indian population are not consulted. They are thrown together in a haphazard arrangement of mercantile expediency, told they are a nation and admonished to get along as equals.

Democracy is self-rule, freedom in its purest collective sense. Self-determination is a process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government. Individually, it is a process by which a person controls their own life.

If only democracy were to be so simple.  Perhaps once upon a time it was simple.  But, today, when one nation’s economic “foreign policy” interests clash with a people’s right to self-determination in some other place, near or far, it gets complicated.

A New York Times editorial flashes across the screen with the nebulous title, Iraq’s Cycles of Revenge. Laying out the peoples and interests which comprise present day Iraq, the piece paints a worrisome picture of chronic behavior which is difficult to modify. Unfortunately, the piece merely scratches the surface of what may really be going on there.

For a better view, one need go back at least a hundred years. If it were only to be about democracy and self-determination, as President Wilson had envisioned at the Palace of Versailles peace table, to settle the differences which remained (among Western powers) at the end of World War I.

Long planned by Great Britain and France from the early days of World War I, the balance of the former Ottoman Empire was “partitioned.” Though not completed at Versailles, the partitioning facilitated the creation of the modern Arab World. The League of Nations then-governing world body granted the United Kingdom mandates over Mesopotamia and Palestine and Jordan. Out of the former, the nation of Iraq was conceived.

The British navy’s conversion to oil during World War I had provided the critical military advantage over its German rival, which was still using coal.  Consequently, absent its own domestic source of oil, Great Britain’s “Mandate for Iraq” was, purely and simply, a plan to implement a foreign policy initiative whose goal was to secure a safe, abundant domestic oil supply.  First and foremost, the oil would be used to power the royal navy in continued military domination of world shipping lanes.

The administration of the plan facilitated a secure supply of Arabian oil over land to Western Europe.  Britain identified the lines of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers as the most favorable supply routes from the cities of Mosul and Basra.  Britain then struck upon a set of arbitrary lines around the physical arrangement, through which it could administer both efficiently and productively, and called it “Iraq.”

Suffice to say the local inhabitants were not consulted.  Consequently, it mattered little to Britain that the new nation would have a Shiite Muslim population in the south and east, Sunni Muslims in the west, and the nomadic Kurds in the north.  The latter group also had a significant population north of the arbitrary border, in southern Turkey.  As between the Shiites and the Sunnis, the Sunnis (Saddam Hussein’s people) were the decided minority, so Britain decided to arm and provide them with the local ruling authority under the mandate.  Some called it “nation building 101.”

These three disparate groups had little in common otherwise, with claims of Holy War made as early as 1920, when Muslim leaders began to organize an insurgent effort.  A fatwa (religious ruling) was then issued, which pointed out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims.  Muslim leaders thereafter called for a jihad (holy war) against the British.  Following World War II, with the torch of leadership of Western Civilization effectively passing from the British to the Americans, the phenomenon of Iraq officially became “our” problem.

In the aftermath following the toppling of its former dictator in 2003, the idea of an “Iraqi revolution” seems absurd, given the arbitrary nature of Iraq.  Let’s face reality: The indigenous population is no more “Iraqi” than we Americans are from Mars.

If it is about American core values of democracy and promoting human rights, what part do national energy security and our economic dependence on the commodity of oil play?  Are stewardship of the environment and the common duty to pay forward for future generations primary considerations?  How vital are American core values of equal protection of the laws coupled with freedom of worship as against thorny moral issues of race, color, creed and gender distinctions?  What is the relative importance of countering extremism, regardless of cause?

Above all, what part is to be played by ordinary citizens?  Who is to serve as our guide?


-Michael D’Angelo

The Union as a Positive Force

Unions are a positive force for good in American society.  They have been largely responsible for important initiatives that perhaps the ordinary citizen sometimes takes for granted.

Progressive reforms which unions have consistently advocated include safe working conditions, increasing the minimum wage (known also as the “living wage”), a limitation on hours, the elimination of sweatshops, employer paid health care in case of accident or injury, paid time off for maternity and profit sharing.  They also exist as a necessary reminder to an increasingly hostile management structure which otherwise would have little problem keeping for itself all the profits of labor’s sweat.

One of our national political parties (i.e. - Democrats) in our two-party system remains decidedly pro-union.  Those who seek reminder need merely reference the recent bailout of the Detroit auto industry in the midst of the Great Recession of 2008.  Roots trace to passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), one of the twin pillars of FDR’s New Deal social safety net, which delivered the right of every worker to join a union of his or her own choosing and the corresponding obligation of employers to bargain collectively with that union in good faith.

Through the idea of bargaining collectively, a union is able to obtain benefits for its workers which an individual worker would simply be unable to obtain for himself.  It’s what unions do.  It’s why they exist.  An ordinary citizen need look back no further than to see that life was not very pretty for the individual worker prior to collective bargaining.  And it’s why a majority of ordinary citizens seem to prefer a world which contains unions as opposed to one which does not.  With collective bargaining removed under the equation, also removed presumably under the new law is the state’s corresponding obligation to act and bargain reasonably and in good faith.

The other of our national political parties (i.e. - Republicans) seeks to do away with a union’s right to collective bargaining, the friend of the middle class for more than 75 years, especially in the public employee sector.  It does this under the facade of a smaller, “cuts only” government approach which exposes an underlying agenda to dismantle the social safety net.  Ironically, as one new component of the social safety net (the popular Obamacare) begins to take hold and gain traction, another (collective bargaining) stands to be eviscerated.  Most recently, Wisconsin became the 25^th state to pass so called “right-to-work” legislation, achieving a half way point among the 50 states on rolling over once powerful union foes.

Of ominous note, while popular “individual” rights may have asserted themselves on the federal union shop floor, statistics show that wealth disparity between rich and poor has increased to a record level --- as union membership has decreased.  And so it may come as little surprise to some that income inequality has worsened at a time when union membership has fallen to levels not seen since the 1920s --- immediately preceding the Great Depression.

Bill Kraus, a moderate who worked on his first Wisconsin Republican U.S. Senate campaign in 1952 and later ran the campaign and office of GOP Gov. Lee Sherman Dreyfus, called the right-to-work shift the deepest change in state politics since Progressive leader “Fighting Bob” La Follette rose to prominence during the Progressive Era nearly a century ago.

Kraus describes himself now as a politically “homeless” man without the shelter of his former partisan affiliation. “A lot of settled things have become unsettled,” he said.  “It's very radical and the question we don't know is whether it's a reflection of a changed Wisconsin or a group in power that have misread their mandate and are more lucky and blessed than right.”

Blessed by whom?  The dark image is of the purchased politician, a Theodore Roosevelt hot button, whose advocacy reflects neither morality nor ethics but rather a symmetry with money flow and the oligarchs who empower him.  The blessing of a benign creator is merely self-serving --- but necessary --- propaganda.  “Blessed is he,” it is said by so called Republican Jesus, “who lets the market decide for him what is moral.”

Human welfare --- the constitutional delegation of federal power to the general welfare to promote sustainable capitalism and environmental stewardship in the pursuit of happiness --- be damned.

-Michael D’Angelo

Elizabeth Warren: "The Game Is Rigged"

“The game is rigged.”  To the student of US History, the ring of this provocative statement should sound more than just vaguely familiar.  We should permit a digression before returning to this theme.

Does the statement sound more authoritative, echoing as it does from the US Senate floor of the nation’s capitol?  Its present day author is US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), progressive champion and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau architect.  If one did not know better, one would think she’s itching for a fight.  She wouldn’t be the first.

Sen. Warren, populist advocate, laments that consumers, families and the poor have been “chipped, squeezed and hammered."  At the 2012 Democratic National Convention she states that “Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends.”  She continues: “After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.” Republican Mitt Romney would reinforce that rigged system, she said, while President Obama would continue his work to dismantle it.  Warren adds “No, Gov. Romney, corporations are not people.  People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance.  They live, they love, and they die.  And that matters.”

Sen. Warren’s new book is called A Fighting Chance (Metropolitan Books, 2014).  It spells out in detail how the game is rigged.  A typical passage follows:

“Here’s what I see out of this.  Washington works --- for those who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers.  It just doesn’t work so well for families.  I saw it with the big banks.  They cheated American families, crashed the economy, got bailed out, and now the five biggest financial institutions in America are 38% bigger than they were during the crash.  They still swagger through Washington blocking reforms and pushing around agencies.  They break the law.  And no banker even faces the inconvenience of a trial, much less a little jail time.  The game is rigged.”

In July 2014 Sen. Warren travels to Detroit, speaking out in support of her book’s ideas:

“Today, many powerful companies look for every possible way they can to boost their profits and to boost their CEO bonuses.  They try to run more efficient companies.  They try to grow faster.  They try to beat out the competition.  But many of them have another plan.  They use their money and their connections to try to capture Washington and rig the rules in their favor.  From tax policy to retirement security, those with power fight to make sure that every rule tilts in their favor.  Everyone else just gets left behind.  That’s what we’re up against.  That’s what democracy is up against.”

And for the grand finale: “A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail.  But a big bank launders drug money and no one gets arrested.  The game is rigged.  And it isn’t right.  It’s rigged.”

There’s an awful lot of substance weaved in here.  A former Harvard professor, Sen. Warren is by all accounts an extremely intelligent woman.  The War on Drugs swallows up the ideal if not the cause of the War on Poverty --- and just beneath the surface there lies the continued control and subjugation of the black race and people of color more generally.  And today, poverty is not restricted to people of color --- many whites share the tattered cloak.

The catchphrase ‘The game is rigged’ is, of course, bespoken of frustration.  But here’s the interesting part.  Sen. Warren knows that the game has been planned this way all along.  The frustration dates back more than 200 years.  It is Thomas Jefferson’s frustration, as well.

The new constitution for the young country with the fledgling democracy does not endorse a particular economic system.  Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposes the economic system of capitalism on the successful British model. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson objects.  As with most issues he faces down, President Washington is unable to fall back on precedent. 

Jefferson says that Hamilton’s system flows “from principles adverse to liberty, and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.”  It does this by creating an artificial class of wealth with certain inherent privileges to certain of its benefactors, which were not the privileges of all citizens.  These benefactors, not by coincidence, are the system’s creators and protectors --- they are members of the US Congress.  Hamilton’s plan, a class system favoring money, would violate the unfettered freedom of the individual to pursue happiness.  It sounds as if Jefferson’s saying that the game is rigged.

Taking Jefferson's arguments into account, before ultimately rejecting them, President Washington’s fateful decision in favor of Hamilton’s plan envisions the greatest good for the greatest number.  Its success by almost any reasonable measure is beyond question.  And so, when Sen. Warren says ‘the game is rigged’ and this is what democracy is up against, isn’t she asking ordinary citizens to question the wisdom of George Washington?

On any legitimate scorecard, it’s a mighty tall order. 

-Michael D’Angelo

Hamilton's Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

“And so this is freedom.”  Peering up at the tall buildings dotting the skyline around New York City’s enchanting Madison Square Park, it poses as much a question as a statement.  No doubt the atmosphere is exhilarating in the confines of this midtown Manhattan landmark, just up the road from Wall Street.

“Yep!” comes the succinct reply.  Of note is not so much what the answer states but how it is stated.  The smile is broad and confident.  The chest and shoulders are thrust outward with great pride, like a peacock in full bloom.  The speaker is a recent college graduate who got a job on Wall Street, working with money.  His father has made a career at one of the big multi-national banks, one that has grown too big to fail.

“Was it your dream to work on Wall Street?  Is this what you always wanted to do?”  The questions are familiar.

“Yeah, but I intend to work here only a few years.  Then, I’ll have the money to do what I want --- get married, have kids, raise a family, buy things, travel … .”  In talking about his dreams, in essence the American Dream, the conversation remains lively, continues for some time.  The questioner permits this indulgence, as the door has been opened.

The questions continue to probe: “Where did you go to college?”

“Union College, in upstate New York.”

Founded in 1795, Union College is one of those quaint, smallish liberal arts colleges which dot the Northeast landscape, with an old Yankee reputation for where the affluent send their children.  Many of the kids who live in the Northeast corridor, and in certain pockets on the West coast, conduct their affairs as if attending a school which costs north of $60,000 per year for four years is not a privilege but an entitlement.

It is time for an off speed pitch: “Hey, do you know that Franklin Roosevelt’s father went to that school?”

He replies: “No --- that would be news to me.  I thought I was aware of all the famous people who went to our school.”

The questioner's curiosity turns to what else this recent grad might be unaware of.  He is free, that much is true.  But does he contemplate the reality of his freedom, within this concept we call liberty?  Does he know that the pursuit of happiness has in fact pre-dated the phenomenon of Wall Street where he works?  Does he realize that Wall Street is, and remains, man’s artificial creation?

What if there were no Wall Street?  What would he be doing then?  He has gone to Wall Street, because he is incentivized to go.  Does he envision himself as a pawn, or rather --- like a sheep --- chasing money?  Hamilton has set it up this way, of course.  An astute student of the most useful “science of human nature,” Alexander Hamilton has incentivized greed, that vice so prevalent on the dark side of human nature.  The result conceives the physical greatness of the state, as in material possessions, some say at the expense of a benign creator.  The rest (including the pursuit of happiness) would fall neatly into place behind it, so the theory goes.  No wonder Jefferson has objected so strenuously.

Individuals should enjoy as much opportunity and freedom from interference as is necessary to the efficient performance of their work.  The making of fortunes has been of the utmost benefit to the whole economic engine, contributing greatly to economic efficiency and productivity.  They have been overpaid, but it has been earned.  Individuals must continue to be encouraged to earn distinction by abundant opportunity and with cordial appreciation.

But individualism is threatened when forced into a common mold, as when the ultimate measure of value is the same, and is nothing but its results in cash. This subtle point does not diminish its importance.  The pressing need is to discredit a democracy of indiscriminate individualism and promote one of selected individuals obliged constantly to justify their selection, as, for example, by adhering to a broader standard, which includes the disinterested, ethical obligation that distinguishes the unselfish citizen from the mere hoarder of gold.  In truth, individuality cannot be dissociated from the pursuit of a disinterested object.

To the extent that the rule has tended to create a powerful yet limited class whose object is to hold and increase the power it has gained, should it be perpetuated?  Should individuals be permitted to outlast their own utility?  Or must individual distinction continue to be earned?  Hostility is not dependent upon the existence of advantageous discriminations for a time, but upon their persistence for too long a time.  Put another way, can economic power at least be detached in some measure from its individual creator?

Take the inheritor of a fortune, who has an opportunity thrust upon him, an economic privilege which he has not earned and for which he may be wholly incompetent.  Individual ability is rarely inherited with the money.  But by virtue of that power he is primed to exploit his fellow citizens, whose own opportunities are thereby diminished.  His position bestows upon him a further opportunity to increase his fortune without making any individual contribution to the social character of the nation.

The money which is a source of distinction to its maker becomes a source of individual demoralization to its inheritor.  His life is organized for the purpose of spending a larger income than any private individual can really need.  In time it can hardly fail to corrupt him.  As a consequence, the social bond upon which the political bond depends is loosened.  The result is class envy on one side, and class arrogance or contempt on the other, unity coming at a cost of a mixture of patronage, servility and debt.

If Union College has taught this, could the lesson be revived?


-Michael D’Angelo

Map Keys ... a Milestone

“It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”

-Upton Sinclair, muckraking author

Map Keys, a signature expression of the Life among the Ordinary blog, surpasses 1,000 page views.  It can be found here:

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/04/map-keys.html

-Michael D'Angelo

Preserving the American Dream ...

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ... 

Preserving the American Dream through meaningful equality of opportunity.

Certain conclusions may be drawn about the umpiring when the 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the bottom half (150 million) combined.  And the conclusions are not all positive.  In the end, society's unrest may be traced to a failure to uphold Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism ideal of basic social justice which puts human welfare first.




Life among the Ordinary: Completing our Nation's Great Unfinished Business presents a rare, independent voice which celebrates the pursuit of happiness through the lens of our imperfect yet predictable human nature.  The product of comprehensive, multi-year study sets the reader upon a course to explore the provocative question:

Is there a practical solution to preserve the American Dream

which empowers ordinary citizens to do it themselves?

-Michael D'Angelo

Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation’s Great Unfinished Business (Most Popular Blog Posts)

Here are the five (5) most popular posts from the blog dating back to its inception in November 2011:

1.   Map Keys (996 views):

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/04/map-keys.html

2.   Theodore Roosevelt and Noblesse Oblige (871 views):

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/06/tr-and-noblesse-oblige-part-one.html

3.   The “Unnatural Alliance” (622 views):

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/07/unnatural-alliance-part-two.html

4.   An Independent Voice (538 views):

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2013/06/an-independent-voice.html

5.   Thomas Jefferson’s Personal “Pursuit of Happiness” (507 views):

http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/06/thomas-jeffersons-personal-pursuit-of.html

Happy reading!

- Michael D’Angelo

Life among the Ordinary - Press Release

(Editor's note: The publisher's press release announcing the publication of Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation’s Great Unfinished Business, is re-printed below.)


Local author publishes a comprehensive study of the American Dream: a “love letter to the ordinary citizen”

SARASOTA, FL – July 29, 2014

Local author Michael D’Angelo has announced the publication of his first book, Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation’s Great Unfinished Business, a multi-year production which celebrates the pursuit of happiness in Western Civilization from the Founding Fathers to the present. The book, which has been published and released by Sarasota-based independent publisher Suncoast Digital Press, Inc., is currently available for purchase via Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats and in a special premium hardcover edition via IngramSpark.

It presents a rare, independent voice which permits the freedom to tell a story through a different lens, using only the eyes of an ordinary citizen within our imperfect yet predictable human nature. In 2014 the US middle class is under unprecedented duress.  D'Angelo examines the specific trend of human welfare throughout American history—courageously identifying the root cause of society's unrest. He explores a provocative question—is there a practical solution to restore meaningful equality of opportunity and preserve the American Dream which empowers ordinary citizens to do it themselves?

The book is acclaimed as “a significant contribution to the perennial dialogue about reform in American life” (Jeffrey R. Orenstein, Ph.D., political scientist and author), a "relatable, authentic and accurate assessment of where we are as a culture" (Tom McManus, co-editor, Journal of Management Development) and "a very powerful source on human behavior and how we evolve" (Dr. Paul Forti, consulting psychologist). D’Angelo's presentation is equal parts academic analysis and opinion, artfully balancing the need for change against the obligation to protect the status quo as we plan today for the challenges of the future.

More information about D’Angelo and his work, as well as how to purchase it, can be found at http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/ or contact the publisher via email bbingham@suncoastdigitalpress.com.

-end of release-


Here are the important links to purchase the book in the desired format ...

... hardcover:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-among-the-ordinary-michael-dangelo/1119913796?ean=9781939237231

... paperback:

http://www.amazon.com/Life-among-Ordinary-Completing-Unfinished/dp/1939237254/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/186-9886105-7975904

... digital (kindle):

http://www.amazon.com/Life-among-Ordinary-Completing-Unfinished-ebook/dp/B00L9HIS48/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr&qid

Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation's Great Unfinished Business

(Note:  Readers are treated here to a sneak preview of the write up which is printed on the hardcover version’s front and rear dust jacket inside flaps.  A formal press release announcing the book’s publication will follow.)

Is there a practical solution to preserve the American Dream which empowers ordinary citizens to do it themselves?  Life among the Ordinary is the product of comprehensive, multi-year study to find out.

Happiness is the aim of life, and virtue is its foundation.  Hamilton’s plan uses the forces of human nature to create an artificial class of wealth with privileges to its benefactors which are not the right of every citizen.  Jefferson says the system flows “from principles adverse to liberty” and is “calculated to undermine and demolish the republic,” narrowing the government into fewer hands and approximating it to a hereditary form.  Washington’s fateful decision under man’s creation envisions the greatest good for the greatest number.

Jackson stakes his popularity on a common man oath.  Government must grant no privilege that aids one class over another and act as an honest broker between classes.  Prosperity abounds in a land of opportunity.  But the new standard of worship for American society is and remains money, moral issues aside, as the war which Lincoln so deplores came.

The Industrial Revolution produces enviable physical results.  But at the dawn of the American century, Theodore Roosevelt reflects that there have been “two great crises in our country’s history: first, when it was formed, and then, again, when it was perpetuated … .”  The third great crisis is upon us, the struggle “to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity.”  He concedes the vitality of faith:

 Friends, perhaps once in a generation, perhaps not so often, there comes a chance for a people of a country to play their part wisely and fearlessly in some great battle of the age-long warfare for human rights.  The doctrines we preach reach back to the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount.  They reached back to the commandments delivered at Sinai.  All that we are doing is to apply those doctrines in the shape necessary to make them available for meeting the living issue of our own day.

A handicapped president helps vanquish a Great Depression and restore the ordinary citizen’s faith in democracy, making capitalism more humane.  Some criticize F.D.R., calling him a socialist and his New Deal socialistic.  But the aim is merely to multiply the number of American shareholders.  “Is this socialistic?” he asks with a hearty laugh.

Yet despite the achievement, what has really changed, if anything?  “For the many,” Robert Kennedy observes, “roots of despair all feed at a common source.  …  Our gross national product … measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worth while.”

America enters the 21^st century with record wealth and income disparity.  The fight for change among people who can't speak for themselves appears to be no match against the power of the entrenched status quo to restore the failed, old order.  At the crossroads the great crisis is in full view.

It’s along the “dimension of economic opportunity,” President Obama notes, “the chance through honest toil to advance one's station in life,” that the goals of the civil rights era “have mostly fallen short.”  The “measure of progress” is “whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many ... .  To win that battle, to answer that call --- this remains our great unfinished business.”

Is there a practical solution to restore meaningful equality of opportunity which empowers ordinary citizens to do it themselves?  The book sets upon a course to take the reader on a journey to that place.

-Michael D'Angelo

Note:  To learn how to purchase the new book in the reader's choice of hardcover, paperback or digital formats, see links to the right.

Publication Announcement !!!

Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation's Great Unfinished Business --- the book, a product of comprehensive, multi-year study --- is published !!!

Here are the important links to purchase in the desired format ...


... hardcover:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-among-the-ordinary-michael-dangelo/1119913796?ean=9781939237231

... paperback:

http://www.amazon.com/Life-among-Ordinary-Completing-Unfinished/dp/1939237254/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/186-9886105-7975904

... digital (kindle):

http://www.amazon.com/Life-among-Ordinary-Completing-Unfinished-ebook/dp/B00L9HIS48/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr&qid

A formal press release regarding the book's publication will be issued shortly.  Please keep an eye out for it!

And thanks for all your support!


-Michael D'Angelo

Liberty and Equality of Opportunity

Beneath every truth and appearance there seemingly lies a measure of paradoxical opposite --- take "Liberty" and "Equality of Opportunity" for example ...

Liberty and equality of opportunity make for interesting bed fellows.  Bed fellows?

Liberty --- together with life and the pursuit of happiness --- are without question the most cherished rights of US citizenship.  Generations of Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice defending them.  Equality of opportunity --- the notion that each is entitled to the same access to the American economic opportunity structure --- has been more elusive.  It is in this area of economic opportunity --- the “chance through honest toil to advance one's station in life” --- where the goals of our nation have fallen most short.

Yet liberty and equality of opportunity, each a desirable principle, are often at odds.  Insofar as equal rights are freely exercised, they are bound to result in inequalities, made to be perpetual.  As one leading progressive thinker has pointed out, the “marriage” --- which the free exercise of equal rights is designed to consecrate between liberty and equality --- “gives birth to unnatural children, whose nature it is to devour one or the other of its parents.”

One of the most interesting challenges in American democracy involves the delicate balancing act which liberty encounters when confronted with equality of opportunity.  Give the people liberty, and all is well.  Give them too much liberty, and equality of opportunity is at sufferance as wealth begins to concentrate and perpetuate unacceptably in the hands of a few.  Give the people too much equality of opportunity, on the other hand, and our nation may devolve to an undesirable societal status which lacks the proper incentive to advance on merit.

Perhaps it was easier in Jefferson’s time on an 18^th century Virginia farm.  The farmer would bring his bushel of wheat to market and receive whatever the market would bear at any given point in time.  In current times, however, when the economic system of capitalism incentivizes speculation --- making vices such as greed and pride appear as virtues --- it’s not so easy to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Beneath every truth and appearance there seemingly lies a measure of paradoxical opposite.

Although confounding at times, that which has one guessing keeps life interesting, as we strive to create a more perfect union.  Americans value self-reliance and individual responsibility.  But we also have empathy for those in need.  Many who are weak have been in need for a long time.  Why does it take so long for some of us to hear them?  In a more perfect union we strive for that elusive balance --- all in the nature of things.

-Michael D’Angelo

T.R.’s New Nationalism and the Central Condition of Progress

“Give me this day my daily bread …” --- is this the familiar prayer we learned --- once upon a time?  How are ordinary citizens to measure their progress?

In 1910 Theodore Roosevelt was still a young man (51) by historical standards but already a former president.  His term had run from the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 through 1908.  After completing an administration featuring an agenda of activist, progressive reform, T.R. declined to run for a third term in the election of 1908.  He was honoring the tradition of George Washington.  Instead, he threw his overwhelming popular support behind his then-Vice President and hand picked successor, William Howard Taft.

To be progressive in 1910 was to belong to America’s middle class.  But Mr. Taft had botched T.R.’s progressive agenda and was now the nation’s top reactionary.  The effect was akin to a political about-face.  Systematically, Mr. Taft began to roll back T.R.’s progressive reforms in a bow to the Republican Party’s affluent, conservative base.  T.R.’s alarm was palpable, his political unrest deepening.

In August 1910 T.R. was to make a case during a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas which would become famous for what he had called “New Nationalism.”  Some labeled it “Communistic,” “Socialistic” and “Anarchistic” in various quarters, while others hailed it “the greatest oration ever given on American soil.”

In his New Nationalism speech, T.R. reflected that there had been “two great crises in our country’s history: first, when it was formed, and then, again, when it was perpetuated … .” The third great crisis was upon us, the struggle “to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity.”

T.R. insisted that only a powerful federal government could regulate the economy and guarantee social justice.  His central tenet was government protection of property rights, a traditional approach.  But he elevated human welfare, the second critical component, to a higher priority. T.R. understood that the success of any presidential administration must be measured by this and would be impossible otherwise.

“At many stages in the advance of humanity,” T.R. said, the “conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.”  The goal was “to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will.”

As was the case 100 years ago, today it can be expected, however, that the privileged classes will be hospitable only to those reforms which spare their privileges.  Nevertheless, it would be intriguing to view the vexing problem of inequality of opportunity through the lens of human welfare ahead of any other legitimate interest.  The goal would secure the benefits of the existing organization, while casting the net of opportunity over a larger social area.

Conservative principles, traditions and national history require only the gradual alteration of adverse social conditions in the name of progress.  Perhaps a people can best exhibit its common sense so clearly as to be contemporary without breaking the ties of historical anchorage. To move too suddenly by uprooting any essential element of the national tradition would come at a severe penalty, as ordinary citizens discovered when they decided to cut slavery out of their national composition.

It is assumed that ordinary citizens wish to escape the need to regain their health by means of another surgical operation.  They must then consider carefully how much of a reorganization of traditional institutions, policies and ideas are necessary to achieve a new, more stable national balance.  They must also consider that any disloyalty to democracy by way of national policy will in the end be fatal to national unity.

The book, Life among the Ordinary: Completing Our Nation's Great Unfinished Business, undertakes such an exercise.  T.R.’s extraordinary 1912 presidential campaign provides a working blueprint.

-Michael D’Angelo

Book Publication Date Announced!

Suncoast Digital Press, Inc. is excited to announce some great news for readers: Life among the Ordinary is scheduled to be published June 2014!  The book will be available in digital, paperback and hardcover formats.

Here's an excerpt from the back cover:

Certain conclusions may be drawn about the umpiring when the 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the bottom half (150 million) combined. And the conclusions are not all positive. In the end, society's unrest may be traced to a failure to uphold Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism ideal of basic social justice which puts human welfare first. Life among the Ordinary presents a rare, independent voice which celebrates the pursuit of happiness through the lens of our imperfect yet predictable human nature.

The Pursuit of Happiness ... Preserving the American Dream and completing our nation's great unfinished business through meaningful equality of opportunity!

Business Success and Civic Virtue

Among other achievements, F.D.R. exposed once and for all “the popular myth that business success was a guarantee of civic virtue.”  The rich man’s “material position” had not been harmed, “but his moral prestige is gone.”  …

The national economy struggles, as wealth disparity increases.  Millions of full time American workers earn wages at or below the poverty line.  One simple take away is that wealth disparity --- of which poverty is an ominous measure --- restricts economic growth.  It’s just math.

Consider the following example.  The average CEO pay in the nation’s fast food industry more than quadrupled from 2000 to 2013 to about $24 million per year.  That’s more than $11,400 per hour --- or $190 per minute.  For sake of comparison, the average pay for the fast food restaurant worker has increased by only .3% since 2000.  He earns about $19,000 per year, assuming he is full time and earns $9 per hour.  For what it’s worth, the US government fixes the poverty line for a family of four at $23,850 per year.

While the effect on the economy can be debated, the effect on human welfare cannot.  How many flat screen TVs --- or iPads --- does the CEO need in his comfortable residence?  How many can he realistically buy to keep him happy?  One would think the saturation point would be reached rather quickly.  By contrast, imagine the boost to the economy, if each and every full time ordinary worker had the means through his paycheck to own a modest car --- or educate his children.

The privileged class objects to raising the minimum wage for ordinary workers.  It also objects to payment of higher effective tax rates.  The reason given is that both are job killers.  But the empirical data over the past 60+ years points in a different direction.  It seems that retaining or putting more money in the hands of the privileged class has not created more jobs.  What it has done is simply put more money in the hands of the privileged class.

Mitt Romney, the successful business man, should have been given the chance to lead at the highest political level, the argument goes, because he is truly a decent man whose objective was only about service.  Okay, so maybe we are talking about moral standing here.  Was any light shed in that regard during the 2012 presidential campaign?

The popular belief is that Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, came up short because he was caught making a poorly timed private comment that nearly half the population (47%) could essentially be written off as lazy dependents.  While not helpful, the comment was not decisive.  What undid Mr. Romney, rather, was his opinion expressed in one of the debates that it was “fair” for his effective tax rate (on nearly $20 million of unearned income) to be lower than that of his $40,000 per year secretary.

Let’s measure Mr. Romney’s opinion against the twin pillars of national social progress, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, one a Republican and the other a Democrat.  While it is true that both came from money, it may be a fallacy to labor under the assumption that the rich hated each on the simple charge of a Roosevelt turning his back on them.

Joseph Kennedy, father of the Kennedy men and himself a rich man, identified a more penetrating charge.  The elder Kennedy was of the opinion that F.D.R. exposed once and for all “the popular myth that business success was a guarantee of civic virtue.”  The rich man’s “material position” had not been harmed, “but his moral prestige is gone.”

What happens then?  A land of opportunity exists only to the extent that the ordinary citizen has the freedom to an unfettered pursuit of happiness unassisted by special privilege of his own --- and unhampered by the special privilege of others.  “No man who carries the burden of the special privileges of another,” Theodore Roosevelt had said, “can give to the commonwealth that service to which it is fairly entitled.”  Nor can he reach his own true potential.  It’s a lose-lose proposition.

Perhaps a number of developing countries today do not dislike the US because we are a democracy --- but rather because we only masquerade as a democracy.  Perhaps the joint rhetoric of the two major political parties tells them that the moral prestige of the men behind the curtain may be lacking.  Does America continue to be a promised land, as once envisioned?  Or just simply another in a long line of crusader states lost in search of empire, with little regard for the inhabitants of its own house?  Actions typically speak louder than words.

-Michael D’Angelo

Equal Access to the American Economic Opportunity Structure

How will our contribution be judged by future generations?  Will the ordinary citizen be prepared for the demands of Judgment Day?  …

Wave after immigrant wave to our shores fantasize about realizing the American Dream.  When it comes to obtaining better, more equal, access to the American economic opportunity structure, the stakes are high.

Factually, the unemployment rate may be hovering around 7% of all Americans, but 20% of American teenagers, and 50% of American black teenagers.  In such times, the ordinary citizen may feel an urge to reflect.  At the end of the Civil War, blacks were so impoverished, so illiterate, and for the most part so lacking in skills that freedom meant little more to them than the ability to leave the place to which they had been bound by slavery.  The post-war records are replete with tales of blacks who took to the roads and retraced their paths back to the plantations from which they had been sold, in search of the families they had lost.  Surely there were blacks who were so battered by the system of slavery that they became sexually promiscuous or irresponsible parents, and apparently remain so, today.

An ordinary citizen may be urged to reflect further.  There are a multitude of decent Americans, who not only are unmoved by the fact that 40% of black children are living in poverty, but use that fact to buttress their own convictions about black inferiority.  Is it reasonable for an ordinary citizen to consider that blacks should constitute 49% of America's prison population?  Is it reasonable for an ordinary citizen to ignore persistent disparities between black and white health, income, wealth, educational attainment, and employment?

Opposing arguments aside, is it also reasonable for an ordinary citizen to consider that a significant number of decent Americans regularly assert enormous efforts to destroy affirmative action?  Is there empathy for the fact that the fragile affirmative action program was enacted in the 1960s and 1970s to compensate for deep injuries sustained over 350 years of legally sanctioned subordination?  Some label the campaign to do away with affirmative action as “brilliant rhetorical propaganda.”  But Cory A. Booker, the black mayor of Newark, NJ calls on the ordinary citizen to consider the economic reality that, in fact, “Yale is cheaper than jail.”

One scholar has warned that his

recurring nightmare in recent years has been that there will be such a significant separation of the black upper and middle classes from poor blacks that when America declares total victory over anti-black racism, substantial numbers of well-off blacks and members of other minorities will be complicit in the deceit.  We will then have a society much like that found in Brazil.  We could tell ourselves that we have a ‘racial democracy’ here, and overlook the fact that the only thing the blacks at the bottom have in abundance is misery, made permanent by their virtually complete lack of access to the national opportunity structure.  We will have put the finishing touches on our national scapegoat; an untouchable, impoverished caste of permanent mudsills, filling a role not at all unlike the one John Smith had in mind for Native Americans almost four centuries ago.

When it comes to civil rights, history does suggest a sort of rather dim view of prior times.  But what about the present?  Put another way, how will our contribution be judged by future generations?  Today, the 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the bottom half (150 million) combined.  Does this sobering statistic uphold the basic ideal of social justice which is this nation’s moral foundation?

While there will be time later to contemplate “tomorrow,” for now, it is understood that if America stands for one thing, more than any other, it is the following.  America provides the ordinary citizen with the opportunity to make something of himself.  The ordinary citizen may accomplish this by exerting his God-given abilities to engage in struggles for decency, discharging the responsibility to hold up his own end of the challenge.  In the end, Judgment Day may demand nothing less.

-Michael D’Angelo