Following up o­n the idea of sparking a campaign to give an opposition party a new vitality, here are some thoughts about what's outside the box of conventional dualistic thinking.

I was listening to a very cogent conversation o­n our progressive radio station, KPFK, this morning, between two people who share my political points of view. However, I was struck by a limitation in their thinking that extends throughout the body of people who are trying to get this to be a more equitable world. The subject of the conversation was taxes, in light of pending legislation where tax cuts for the highest earners are about to be enacted as a way to stimulate the economy. The guest, John Ritter, a professor at Wheaton College, was knowledgeable about the bottom line issues — what the cuts are and what their effect will be — but through it all I heard a mind-set that bears thinking about.

The premise of the liberal camp, as part of the zeitgeist of the times, is that we must fight the rich for benefits to the poor. It is such a pervasive ideation that we don't even think of it as a choice. My thoughts this morning were about how, with this perspective, there always will be struggle. War is struggle at its most dramatic level, and, indeed, we do not conceptualize a world without war. Listening this morning, however, I did. As I listened to battle plans — fighting the rich was what we had to do, and the o­nly action we could take was to organize — I thought about how endlessly we would be at this, and how much we were in need of a different idea about what is going o­n and what to do about it.

Starting at the grossest level, if putting more money in the pockets of the rich is what stimulates the economy, based o­n the idea that if the rich get richer they spend more, and then we make policy to insure that, we are somewhat nuts. It's good for us all if the inordinately wealthy have more estates? We also could find fault with thinking these cuts would be the fix we need to get more money flowing. Do the rich calibrate their spending based o­n disposable income, or, with the upper echelons having so much, will what they get in cuts be more to stash and not more to spend? The game is acquisition. Who has the biggest fortune wins. It's not about who spends the most, because when you're really big you can't for the life of you spend it all.

Instead of fighting the enemy, how about talking a different kind of turkey? How about everybody getting sober and giving up those money based scorecards, let alone the ultra-palatial life styles that the super rich indulge in? Now, we are revolted by the over the top spending o­n homes and boats and shower curtains by the officers of the various bankrupt corporations who bled the public so mercilessly to get what they've got, but how about being put off by anybody who is living with that kind of ostentation? How about it being politically incorrect to live in ways that flaunt money? You know, the rich would still be rich, and their lifestyles would still be full of luxury if extreme excessiveness were not in play. Each person in the cast of “Friends” is making a million dollars an episode. That's obscene in my schema.

When you move o­n to the estate tax, it's not a done deal as to the equity of it, as we liberals would have you thinking, where this is a tax cut to the rich who don't deserve it. I'm more comfortable with a whopping high top tax bracket for earnings — it's OK with me if it goes to 90% — but that estate tax needs pondering. It is in fact an arbitrary imposition of a way for the government to get income. It doesn't make inherently defensible sense that you should be taxed for dying, and the liberal outrage needs deeper consideration. If there were a conference table where leaders of thought worked with what the needs of the world are, and the possibilities to fill them, perhaps they would arrive at an understanding that the spirit of America is for each person to make their way. And that wealth coming to heirs is not necessarily good for them — there are support groups for rich kids who don't feel entitled to their money. So, maybe a rational look at the situation would have some intelligentsia deciding that it was good for the national character to limit inheritances. We could talk about heirs being just plain lucky, and that luck shouldn't uphold the incredible schism between the rich and the poor that is perhaps the most threatening social dynamic in the world. Or maybe not — maybe double taxation isn't suited to the American spirit of entrepreneurship, where, if you are successful, part of your reward is to be able to pass it o­n. That's a conversation worth having.

One nice thing about what I'm proposing is that it's something that we liberals can do amongst ourselves. We can develop a new body of thought — the New National Understanding — which is nothing less than the times are calling for. This is what we need to do to get a true opposition party and to invigorate the Democrats with a way to deliver the vision of equality that it always has stood for. Ideation comes first. Progressives would still be out there, critical as could be, but not avowing to fight the enemy. We would be educating everyone, encouraging the mutual understanding that would free us from all our enslavements to a dysfunctional system.

Follow