A Closer Look Here, There and Everywhere
by Trish PurcellThere are many definitions for the word "idiot" and far too many of us fall under one or several of them.
Idiot: person who is void of understanding. A good description for a large number of the people we elect and send to Washington to run our country. It is particularly apt right now for those who are set on defeating health care reform. They are totally void of any understanding of what it means to actually represent the people of this country; totally void of understanding the economic consequences of defeating health care reform; and totally void of understanding that when they sell out the American people they are also selling their own souls.
This definition also fits many for-profit corporations. It has become, not only acceptable but legal for these companies to put increasing profits before everything else including the common good of the people and the welfare of our country. Because making profits for stockholders is their legal purpose, they have become void of understanding there is a moral and ethical responsibility to the people, communities and countries that make those profits possible.
Idiot: insanely irresponsible person. An apt definition for those of us who keep re-electing the same people; keep sending them back to Washington expecting them to do things differently; keep allowing them to do the bidding of big money to the detriment of the people without raising a deafening chorus of disapproval that cannot be ignored. It is surely insanity giving credence to the mindless blather of politicians mouthing talking points written by political strategists and greedy insurance industry lobbyists.
And who but the insanely irresponsible would defend the standard operating procedures of businesses that undermine the security of their jobs, their health care, and their pensions? Why would any sane person fight to keep in power a business model that not only works against their personal interests but against the economic interests of their country.
Idiot: foolish or senseless person. A fitting characterization of those who say that government run programs are an abomination apparently unaware that what they are saying applies to: Medicare, Congressional medical coverage, and Medicaid; Veterans Administration - benefits and hospitals; Social Security and SSI; Public schools and universities; Firefighters, policeman, sheriffs, and forest rangers; FBI and CIA; U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corp., Air Force, and Coast Guard; and The United States Post Office.
Some of these older foolish and senseless people are biting off their own noses to spite their faces by ranting and raving about government control of health care without apparently realizing their Medicare and VA coverage are government run.
Idiot: a person lacking common sense. A definition suitable for those who think a for-profit corporation with no real competition is the best choice for supplying health care coverage; for those who believe that such a business will put the health and welfare of customers before the goal of ever increasing profits; for those who ignore the thousands of horror stories about cancelled policies, delayed and denied claims, and refusals of coverage, because it has not happened to them... yet. It is an appropriate description for people who don't bother to seek truth but simply swallow whatever TV or radio personalities say and then repeat it as if it is fact rather than the opinion and bias of someone else. And that brings us to a particular category of idiots - useful idiots.
Useful idiots are persons who naïvely think themselves allies of manipulative entities (political parties, organizations, corporations) but are actually held in contempt and cynically used by them; those who are ignorant (uninformed of the facts) and thus easily swayed (made 'useful') toward causes that are against their own interests, or what they would consider to be for the greater good, if they were better informed. Those who are insanely irresponsible, foolish and senseless, and lacking in common sense frequently become useful idiots for those who are void of understanding.
On a brighter note, just because that is what we have been doing doesn't mean we have to continue that way. We can change what we are doing whenever we want. Now is the ideal time to make that change. Health care reform is in our best interests, let's not be idiots about it.
Well, Trish, you really tapped into my well-spring of cynicism on this one!
If your definition of an idiot is a person who is void of understanding, you made me scratch my head in disbelief when you wrote:
"This definition also fits many for-profit corporations. It has become, not only acceptable but legal for these companies to put increasing profits before everything else including the common good of the people and the welfare of our country. Because making profits for stockholders is their legal purpose, they have become void of understanding there is a moral and ethical responsibility to the people, communities and countries that make those profits possible."
Having been employed by "for-profit corporations" all of my adult life, and most of it in advertising and public relations, I'm here to tell you my employers really did put increasing profits before everything else. That is the absolute nature of "for-profit" corporations in capitalist countries all over the world. Yes, it was my job to help my employers make profits for stockholders. It was our reason for existence!
Where you're mixing up the proverbial apples and oranges is when you assume corporations are the same as governments and have the same moral and ethical responsibility to the people. It's the government that makes the laws under which corporations operate and it is the government's responsibility to oversee and control the operations of the corporations. If corporations find ways to skirt the laws and swindle the public, it's the government that needs to go after the swindlers.
So it all leads back to whether the president and his administration in charge at any particular time is willing to enforce laws and execute new laws which keep corporations operating morally and ethically. The Bush administration is certainly an example of letting corporations, especially banks and investment companies, run amok.
But the one deciding factor in the whole equation is LOBBYISTS. We'd all be idiots to not see that they are the real decision makers.
So as the old saying goes, if you can't fight 'em, join 'em.
Just imagine that if we, the people, could form a lobbying group funded by donations from people and institutions who really care about the welfare of our citizens, we could buy off members of Congress to vote the way we wanted them to. We might end up with the finest medical insurance plan in the world.
(I learned about the importance of making corporate profits when I worked for a large New York advertising agency and during the 23 years I worked for underdog cargo airline in Southern California called Flying Tigers, most of that time as advertising manager. We tried to compete against the four major airlines who got all kinds of government hand-outs and advantages in what was called "grandfather rights." We had no pull in D.C. Eventually we got new management to replace the WWII vets who started our company and we hired a Washington LOBBIEST firm with "connections." You may know our company today by the name of FedEx.)
And, Dode, you hit on one of my hot button topics!
If you trace the history of corporate power, it clearly shows that the abuses, greed, and tyrannical nature of today’s corporations are the antithesis of what early American citizens intended. Cognizant of the domination of British corporations, they had a healthy fear of corporate power and made strong efforts to restrict the power of wealthy and privileged interests in this new country. In the country’s formative years and into the mid-1800s, there were strict rules governing corporations and they were granted only short term charters not the open-ended charters of today. The “public good” was a major consideration and charters were often revoked when corporations acted against the public good. They were forbidden to try to influence elections, public policy or other areas of civic society. They were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. In Europe, directors and stockholders had been protected from liability for debts and harm caused by their corporations. In America legislators refused to include such protections and in fact punished abuse or misuse of a charter by dissolving the corporation and distributing the assets to shareholders.
However, the efforts of the people to protect the democratic aims of the new republic met with aggressive resistance early on. You know how the rich and powerful are – they will have their way no matter what it takes or how long it takes. Citizens had initial success in constraining corporations in individual states. As late as 1855 state sovereignty reigned and through laws and constitutional (state) amendments the “artificial bodies” (corporations) remained under citizen authority. But the federalist Marshall Court (1801-1835) had already laid the legal groundwork for the “explosion of corporate power” that occurred in the second half of the 19th century.
In the chaotic aftermath of the Civil War (1861-1865) profiteers were able to purchase favors from elected officials and the courts came more and more under the control of the wealthy. Corporations financed law schools and law firms dedicated to expanding corporate rights and privileges. It was during this time that corporations were given limited liability, increased terms of charters and reduced citizen authority over them. As the strength of the corporations grew, government and courts became easy prey; the Constitution was reinterpreted and common law doctrines were transformed.
Corporate corruption flourished as the “robber barons” used and abused their employees amassing huge fortunes while the courts abandoned their duty to the law and the people. The final nail in the coffin of citizen sovereignty was the Supreme Court ruling in 1886 in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad which gave corporations the standing of personhood. It was not actually part of the court opinion but rather a misleading note written by a court reporter that subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.“ This is more a testiment to the collusion of the judiciary and corporations than any rule of law. And more than a half century later, Justice William O. Douglas wrote “there was no history, logic or reason to support that view.” From that time to the present, the 14th Amendment, meant to protect the rights of freed slaves, has been used to strike down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm. And just think! All these rulings are based on an illegitimate premise.
According to a February 2000 article on ReclaimDemocracy.org,
When our country was most properous, after WWII, there was a so-called “corporate social contract” between corporations and their employees. In exchange for their loyalty and hard work, employees received a living wage, health care benefits, a promise of continued employment and a decent retirement pension. Then corporate greed and the availability of cheap foreign labor voided the social contract and America’s leading employers became low-wage, low-benefit corporations.
We went from a mutally beneficial capitalism under which the counry prospered to a predatory capitalism in which corporations reap all the benefits and the workers whose labor actually produces the profits are lucky if they get enough to eat and keep a roof over their heads. This is not what our founders intended for America. It is, in fact, the very thing they fled when they came to this new country.
I have no problem with companies making a profit. I do have a problem with them making excessive profits at the expense of those who labor to produce those profits. And that is why I believe corporations have a moral and ethical responsibility to their workers and the communities and countries in which they operate.
This responsibility supercedes any legal determination that profit is their only goal. Just because something is legal does not make it right. There is much that is legal that is just plain wrong and that is where common sense and human judgment come into play. Otherwise we are saying right and justice have no place in our society.
Trish: And thus was born workers' unions.
Ah yes, worker’s unions. That would be the organizations that originally made a difference for workers. But then alas, human nature being what it is, those running the unions became corrupted by the power and money their positions brought them. That opened the door for those pesky rich and powerful to start manipulating public sentiment to turn it against the unions. So instead of trying to fix the unions, they, being useful idiots, just went along with the program and rendered them powerless. And as the unions lost members and power, the workers wages became stagnant, and benefits began to disappear, loyalty - company to employees and employees to company - became a thing of the past. Funny how that works… turning people into useful idiots; getting them to work against their own interests. Sounds a lot like what the insurance industry is doing with health care reform.
Yes, there was much corruption in the unions. But it would be less than fair to say they killed themselves. Reagan had more to do with destroying the unions than any other president. Now we blame corporations like Wal-Mart for not allowing their employees to form a union. And the green grass grows all around all around.
I don’t think for a minute the unions killed themselves. The corruption of the union leaders simply gave the master manipulators the opening to start turning public sentiment against the unions. And these manipulators are so good at what they do that people lost sight of the good that unions did for workers; forgot that without unions there would have been no decent wages, benefits, and worker protections.
Reagan was of course responsible for the beginning of the end when he broke the Air Traffic Controllers’ strike. And how ironic that people failed to realize their own safety was at stake in that strike and sided with the actor who was playing the role of President instead of with the controllers who were seeking better working conditions and shorter hours – things much needed for their high stress work.
Such a good job was done in discrediting unions, a job that continues today, that it is hard to convince people that they might be shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to consider the advantages of unionizing. If our economy continues to go downhill that may change as people get hungrier and hungrier.
I have never belonged to a union and at one time was one of those useful idiots who had only negative things to say about them. That was when I was young and stupid but hopefully, I have learned a few things in the years since. lol