PS.  This is what I meant when I said competence. 

 

REH

 

June 2, 2011

A White Woman From Kansas

By ROGER COHEN
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/columns/rogercohen/?inline
=nyt-per> 

LONDON — For a long time Barack Obama
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/i
ndex.html?inline=nyt-per> ’s mother was little more than the “white woman
from Wichita” mentioned in an early Los Angeles Times profile of the future
president. She was the pale Kansan silhouette against whom Obama drew the
vivid Kenyan figure of his absent Dad in his Bildungsroman of discovered
black identity, “Dreams from My Father.” 

Now, thanks to Janny Scott’s remarkable “A Singular Woman,” absence has
become presence. Stanley Ann Dunham
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/stanley_ann_du
nham/index.html?inline=nyt-per> , the parent who raised Obama, emerges from
romanticized vagueness into contours as original as her name. Far from
“floating through foreign things,” as one colleague in Indonesia observes,
“She was as type A as anybody on the team.” 

That may seem a far-fetched description of a woman who was not good with
money, had no fixed abode and did not see life through ambition’s narrow
prism. It was the journey not the destination that mattered to Dunham. She
was, in her daughter Maya Soetoro-Ng’s words, “fascinated with life’s
gorgeous minutiae.” To her son the president, “idealism and naïveté” were
“embedded” in her. 

Yet she was also a pioneering advocate of microcredit
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/microfinance
/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>  in the rural communities of the
developing world, an unrivaled authority on Javanese blacksmithing, and a
firm voice for female empowerment in an Indonesia “of ‘smiling’ or gentle
oppression” toward women, as she wrote in one memo for the Ford Foundation. 

Unbound by convention, Dunham the anthropologist was nonetheless the
anti-hippie with her cache of can-do Kansan wisdom: “You’re not okay, I’m
not okay, and I know how to fix it.” 

The fixing was not quick. Dunham knew that. “Well, life is what it is,” she
would say: As in getting pregnant at 17 by the first African student to
enroll at the University of Hawaii, the brilliant Barack Hussein Obama
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/i
ndex.html?inline=nyt-per>  Sr., who loved her and left her — for Harvard.
Adulthood was thrust on her early. One colleague recalls her saying: “Don’t
conclude before you understand. After you understand, don’t judge.” 

Such forbearance is one of her many obvious influences on her son. Taken to
Indonesia as a young child on Dunham’s second marriage, then dispatched aged
nine back to Hawaii to become an American in his grandparents’ care, Obama
emerges here as a product of his mother’s presence and absence. 

To an unusual degree, because of the absence and because he was half-black,
he had to define his own identity — hence the almost feline coolness, the
hermetic quality in the president. 

To an equally unusual degree, because Dunham loved him fiercely, he had the
emotional grounding to survive such self-definition. “If you are going to
grow into a human being,” she told him early, “you are going to need some
values.” 

Hers were all about bridging, connecting. Doing field research in Javanese
villages, she would complain that an interview had been “cut after 3 or 4
hours with poor results” — no zapper, she. 

Improving the lot of people was not about rapid industrialization, but about
empowering. It was essential to dig. As she noted, “A Javanese woman may
have agricultural skills in transplanting, weeding and harvesting rice, but
she may also know how to make batik cloth, operate a roadside stall …
deliver babies for her neighbor.” Her beliefs were summed up by one
colleague: “Development, like democracy, is a learning process. People have
to learn to have freedom, on one side, and also responsibility, the rule of
law, social discipline.” 

Yes, fixing is not quick — and nor is it necessary to look much further to
understand Obama’s bridging instinct or his response to the Arab Spring. 

I found myself liking Dunham — the nonjudgmental irreverence; the
determination to live what she loved; the humor (after a stomach-turning
surfeit of peanuts, she notes, “Yes, peanuts do have faces — smirky, nasty
little faces, in fact”); the frankness with friends — “I don’t like you in
your arrogant bitch mode.” Her 52 years were rich. 

She missed her son. The decision to send him to get educated in America was
brave — and has changed the world in that Obama would not otherwise have
become a black American. This is a central conundrum of a book that makes
Obama’s white parent palpable for the first time. 

In an affecting passage one colleague, Don Johnston, describes how Dunham
“felt a little bit wistful or sad that Barack had essentially moved to
Chicago and chosen to take on a really strongly identified black identity”
that had “not really been part of who he was when he was growing up.” She
felt that “he was distancing himself from her” in a “professional choice.” 

Was it political calculation, love of Michelle Robinson, dreams of his
father, or irritation with a dreamer-mother that made Obama black? After
all, he was raised white. He chose black. Or perhaps he had no choice. Being
biracial in the America Obama grew up in was not much of an option. 

I said “Bildungsroman” — in some essential sense “Dreams from My Father” was
fictionalized. Obama’s ballast, the fact of his life, was his mother. This
book reveals in a singular woman just why he had the wit and the heart to
forge himself, as in those Indonesian blacksmithing villages where Dunham
long listened to the “light counterpoint” of the master smith tapping
instructions on the anvil. 

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:59 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy

 

Been here, done this before.   Good to hear from you Ed. 

 

REH

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:47 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy

 

I do believe that "competency" figures into economics, Ray, even though
"scarcity" is a more basic concept.  In a capitalist society, the competent
take scarce resources and combine them into uses that serve their
self-interest - i.e. that pay off to the maximum extent.  In so doing, they
hire people and thereby serve the economic interests of society.  That is
what happens under capitalism.  Under socialism, the resources are combined
not to serve individual interests but rather communal interests --- or so
the theory might go.

 

Another concept that is often left out is morality, the "golden rule" kind
of thing, like you wouldn't do anything to hurt other people just as you
wouldn't want to hurt yourself.  In capitalist societies, laws are enacted
in place of morality -- e.g. the now gone Glass-Steagal or the US law that
prevented corporate interests from buying politicians and converting them
into lobbyists.

 

There is another way of building morality into economic behaviour.  I did a
job in the Los Santos area of Costa Rica a few years ago and what amazed me
there was the huge array of cooperatives active in the area.  It seemed that
everyone wanted to help everyone else.  Why?  I attributed it to the
influence of the huge church in the middle of each community -- love thy
neighbour (or be eternally damned?) etc.

 

I'd better quit here because next thing I say may be something silly or even
sillier than what I've said already.  Getting tired.

 

Regards, 

Ed

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ray Harrell <mailto:[email protected]>  

To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
<mailto:[email protected]>  

Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 5:15 PM

Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy

 

One thing neither of you are taking into account is term limits.    We are
guaranteed an amateur president who just learns the office and leaves.   It
doesn’t even work for mayors.   Term limits on Congress guarantees short
term thinking.    Term limits are also used as a weapon by the right wing to
demean  the very idea of government itself.   

 

It doesn’t help when ex-government employees lift their legs on government
either.   I’ve worked in the private sector for fifty years and grew up in
the public sector with both parents in public education.     I’ve always
defended public education and the need for a private sector but I certainly
know the problems in both.      I would argue that it would help if people
didn’t “think” as if they weren’t a part of all this but had a stake in
helping it work and making it work for everyone.    

 

No one seems to see the problem in the basic premise of economics that is
grounded in the “scarcity” construct rather than in a “competency” construct
and the development of the “Field of Plenty.”     Everyone says that solar
power isn’t economical.   The implication is that it’s too expensive when
the reality is that what is free is NOT economical at all.     No one want
to purchase sand if they live on the beach and no one wants to buy castor
bean beer either just because its scarce.     The very idea of business is
the idea of winners and losers.   I would argue that to complain when the
religion of the market effects the government negatively and yet refuse to
question the religion itself as a system,  is to make the choice to be a
loser in the game of life.

 

Good to hear from you Ed and Keith I enjoyed your post about the Chinese.
Well done.  The sole qualm I had was about women’s suffrage and the roots of
the problem.   I think it has more to do with the private sector having too
much power, too little regulation by the society and term limiting the
governors so they don’t have time to build power groups that accomplish
things.     The issue of morality (cronyism)  is a problem of religion and
personal judgment.   It would help if the society could learn the elements
that go into teaching both and teach them.    Then give people a decent time
to learn the Art of Government.     If one religion had too many lawbreakers
perhaps we could apply the rule that they apply to teachers who fail.   Cut
their tax deduction until they do a better job with their constituency or
teach the foundations of morality and critical judgment to everyone in
public school. 

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy

 

Keith, I'll just have to take you at your word on the actual rate of US GDP
growth.  It may well be higher than the 1.8% Reich claims it is.  However,
many of the other things he mentions, and which others have mentioned,
suggest an economy in decline and perhaps in severe decline.  Everything
seemed to be looking up until about the 1970s and then ever so many things
started going down hill after that.  The best book I have on the reasons for
it is Hacker's and Pierson's "Winner Take All Politics" which lays out how
the rich got very much richer, the middle class became eroded and the poor
became poorer from the mid-1970s to the present.  I should take another look
at the book, but some of the most significant trends H&P (and Riech) mention
relate to changing political power, enabling the rich to control politicians
to make decisions to their advantage (e.g. Bush tax cuts, financial
donations to politicians making them, in effect, lobbyists for finance and
industry) and the politically fostered decline of unions.  As well, the US
government and many state governments have become hugely indebted and
therefore greatly constrained with regard to the kinds of stimulus programs
they can launch.  All in all, whether the rate of growth is as Reich says or
a little higher, the US does not appear to have much of a chance of a return
to the kind of growth, hope and prosperity we witnessed in the decades
following WWII.

 

Ed

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Keith Hudson <mailto:[email protected]>  

To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
<mailto:[email protected]>  ; Ed Weick
<mailto:[email protected]>  

Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Futurework] American economy

 

Ed,

At 15:09 02/06/2011, you wrote:

Robert Reich's take on what has happened to the USA since world war II.
 
http://truthout.org/truth-about-american-economy/1306953884 


This is a pretty accurate account of the American economy since '45.
However, towards the end he writes:

<<<<
Democrats, meanwhile, are behaving as if they’re powerless to affect the
economy even though a Democrat occupies the White House and his appointees
run the federal government.
>>>>

. . . and then gives no hint of what policy the Democrats should be
advocating!  OK, it's true enough that they don't have a policy (except more
public spending which would only make the deficit worse) but that he -- one
of the most articulate economists on the left -- hasn't been able to sketch
out something that's anywhere near relevant is eloquent enough.

But there's another point that intrigues me for which Reich is not to blame.
This is the figure of 1.8% that's officially quoted for present GDP growth.
This cannot be so. In America, as in the UK and Europe, the average income
and well being of ordinary folk has actually been declining for decades. And
yet GDP has supposedly been tanking along at anything between 3% and 5% p.a.
for year after year! There's clearly a discrepancy here of at least 2%. Far
from being 1.8% today, it ought to be 0% or even  a negative figure. This is
pure spin by government statisticians and economists.

Much the same applies in the case of official figures for inflation --
except the fix is in the opposite direction. To be realistic, at least 2% or
3% should be added to the officially quoted rate. This is why Bernanke is so
ambiguous as to know what he's going to do next. He knows that America is
not far away from galloping inflation. "Can I get away with yet another dose
of QE", he must be asking himself. He must be very fearful that if he does
so he might go down in the history books as the person who transformed the
Great Recession into the Great Depression Mark II.

Keith
  




Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/
  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to