Here’s another paper I wrote last semester. Enjoy!

Let Them Eat Donna Reed:

Family Values As A Diversionary Tactic.

               America is in terrible shape. We cannot even keep our government open. Our economy seems to be perpetually on the brink of collapse. Unemployment rates are high. We have been at war with terror for 12 years and counting. We have been at war with drugs for even longer. Our industrial base is being eroded by overseas competition. What are the reasons for our current predicament? Right-wing politicians, pundits, preachers and those who aspire to leadership want us to believe that it is the fault of the government, the unions, the gays, the Muslims, the single mothers, and the “takers” in society who are getting rich ripping off the welfare system. They would have us believe that we need to return to those good old family values represented in our collective sub-conscious by The Donna Reed Show and host of others like it, and our problems will fix themselves. By embracing and promoting the myth of the Donna Reed American family, politicians and religious leaders have manufactured an unimpeachable moral high ground that solidifies their power base while effectively hampering efforts to cure the societal ills that they bemoan.

          Historically speaking, the stay-at-home mom is a largely a myth. To be sure, there have always been some women who were just homemakers, but they were in the minority, and usually in the middle to upper class. Poor women have always been major contributors to the family income, either through conventional employment in the work-place, or through under-the-table cottage industries, like providing child care in their homes for other working mothers, and manufacturing food and goods for their families to stretch the cash a little bit further. In fact, founding father Alexander Hamilton recommended women and children as cheap sources of labor in his 1791 report on manufacturing (Leckie, 2013). Not until the progressive movement of the early 20^th century were many real steps taken to protect the working man, let alone working women and children, from blatant exploitation. National tragedies like the Homestead Strike in 1892 (Foner, pp 629-631), and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in 1911 (Foner, pp 672-674) gave Progressive reformers the impetus to enact legislation restricting working hours, child labor, and unfair business practices, establishing work-place safety standards, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, a graduated income tax, and many other things that we now take for granted, like women’s suffrage, and the right to unionize (Foner 629-712). Although the power of the working class has ebbed and flowed, the times of greatest prosperity have been proceeded by further empowerment of the working class. However, today’s crop of family values advocates would have us believe that only unrestricted business can restore our economy. Government restrictions and regulations are presented as the enemy of prosperity and freedom. They conveniently ignore the fact that “We the People” are (or at least are supposed to be) the government.

          One advantage of taking a simple (or simplified) stance on complex issues is that a simple rebuttal requires your opponent to at least appear to endorse what you stand against, and vice versa. Thus, liberals seem to be saying that abortion is good, and the “traditional American family’ is bad. When they try to explain their often quite reasonable views, liberals appear wishy-washy, unsure of themselves and their arguments, because articulating their views is necessarily more complex. To quote Manhattan Institute researcher Kay Hymowitz on the subject of non-traditional families, “Even if you’re just neutral on the subject, you are still saying it’s basically fine, that it’s of no importance difference whether a child grows up with a father or not” (Green, 2013).

          Another advantage of the simple, conservative approach is that the simple approach appeals to personal justice, while the more complex, liberal approach appeals to societal fairness. To conservatives, if a teenager is pregnant and unwed, it is because she cannot keep her legs together, and she is only getting what she deserves. The fault is hers. To liberals, while most would agree that abstinence would have been a good policy, the reasons for her pregnancy stem from many things entirely beyond her control, i.e. poverty, lack of education, social marginalization, and the hopelessness that accompanies these things. The fault, in many ways, lies with all of us. To most of us, societal causes are many-faceted and hard to understand, while personal justice is simple. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time is a philosophy that most of us understand and agree with.

          Yet another advantage is that it is able to rely on public perception and popular beliefs rather than cold hard facts. Warnings of a takeover of America by gays, Muslims and immigrants appeal to the feelings of insecurity that we all feel in this post 9/11 era. For example, Gallup polls have found that Americans think that homosexuals make up 25% of the population (Franke-Ruta, 2012). This is reinforced by the constant news coverage of gay issues, from political battles to gay pride parades, as well as the rapidly expanding numbers in homosexual-based programming and homosexual characters in TV shows and movies. The prevalent sensationalism, particularly in news coverage, from political hyperbole to the images of homosexuals parading down the streets dressed in outlandish and often disturbingly revealing costumes, ramps up the tension and insecurity even more. These days, everyone is much more aware of homosexuality than they were even 20 years ago. The fact is that homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up only about 5% of the population (Franke-Ruta), a much less intimidating number, but one that flies in the face of public perception.

          It also appeals to Americans’ vision of ourselves and our nation. We see ourselves as moral, hard-working, independent-minded people who do not need government or anyone else to take care of us. All we need is a chance to get in the game, and an even playing field, and we will be fine. Dependence on government hand-outs will turn us all into slaves. We just need the government to get out of our way. The fact that most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, one car accident or illness away from destitution does not seem to enter into our thinking, politically speaking. The thought that, “There, but for the grace of God, go I” seems to be forgotten.

          Finally, it is tactically sound. Choose the battleground, entrench yourself on the high ground, and make your enemies come to you. It worked for Lee at Fredericksburg during the Civil War, and it works for politicians today. For example, a right-wing pundit can say abortion is bad. Even moderate conservatives will agree with him. The problem for liberals is that even they basically agree with him. They generally see it as a necessary evil, or the best of two bad choices. Even most the ardent pro-choice advocates usually see it as a matter of women’s rights, not as a good thing in and of itself. Thus, the left is hobbled by seemingly vacillating, morally untenable, and therefore weak, positions.

          In conclusion, by diverting people’s attention with “Family Values” the conservative right have managed to focus that attention on issues, rather than on the people affected by those issues. It is a tried-and-true political tactic that is often effective, but not without its risks in the face of rising support for reform. In the face of similar drives for reform, Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake,” and look how that ended for her. In a time when even the Pope advocates a shift in focus from rules and dogma to concern for people (Spadaro, 2013), it may become even more dangerous.    

References

Foner, E. (2012). Give me liberty! : An American history (3^rd edition, Vol. 2). (pp. 629-

          712). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Franke-Ruta, G. (2012, May). Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There

Are. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/

Green, E. (2013, July). Why Is It Hard for Liberals to Talk About Family Values’? :

Racial tensions, a fear appearing judgemental, and the sexual revolution…?

The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/

Leckie, S. (no date available). Women in the Workplace: A History. The Labor Site.com

          Retrieved from http://www.thelaborsite.com/

Spadaro, A. (2013, September). A Big Heart Open to God. America: The National

Catholic Review. Retrieved from http://www.americamagazine.org/

I hear a lot of people who say they support our troops, and I believe them. You see lots of yellow ribbons on cars everywhere you go. My church, like a lot of churches, holds our veterans in high esteem, and constantly remembers those currently serving in our prayers. On Facebook, there’s a constant stream of pro-military videos and posts. I have no doubt in my mind that Americans overwhelmingly support our troops.

The feeling is reciprocated by the troops. They love our country. They are willing to submit to hardships and dangers that can really only be understood by someone who has served. Many face danger and death daily, not only in combat zones, but in hazardous training missions designed to prepare them for combat.

In 1998, 12 members of the 66th Rescue Squadron were killed in a training accident. The 2 helicopters they were in collided, killing everyone on board. Like everyone else in the squadron, I was devastated. The accident investigation found that a primary cause of the accident was basically stress and exhaustion caused by constant combat deployments. I was extremely angry at the time, and am still angry. I do have to say that I don’t believe any of the guys who were killed would be. They worked hard, and they flew hard. They all loved their jobs, and recognized and accepted the risks they were asked to take. The Rescue motto is “That Others May Live”, and they believed in that. They died doing something they loved, for a country they loved. They were some of the best and bravest men I’ve ever had the privilege to know.

That said, however, it was then, as it is now, my belief that their deaths were unnecessary, and imminently avoidable. The strongest men and the best pilot will make mistakes when pushed too hard and too far, and now, as then, we as a country push too hard and ask too much. We have been at war constantly for 13 years now. Our troops have been used and abused in 2 concurrent wars that were ill-conceived, if not just plain stupid. I don’t know what other options we had, but I feel sure there had to be better options than this. Our troops deserve better than to just be thrown at problems because our leaders lack the imagination or intelligence to find other solutions. They deserve better than to be battered, beaten, and broken in the service of our country at the whim of politicians and lobbyists who benefit from our troops’ sacrifices at no risk to themselves.

The men and women in our armed forces are willing to die for us. I think that if we really, truly support them, then the least we can do is to try to make sure that when they do, that it’s worth it. We have the best military in the world, manned by the best men and women this country has to offer. We owe it to them to use them properly, respecting them enough to not ask them to make those sacrifices unnecessarily, and making sure that when they come home, they get the support they deserve, not just platitudes and lip service.

Supporting our troops has to be more than just putting a sticker on a car, or praying for them. We do that much for a high school football team. We’ve got to let those in leadership know how we expect them to lead. We’ve got to get over the “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” mindset that we’ve adopted over the last 50 years or so. The cost of war is high. We’ve got to do everything we can to make sure that those who pay that cost don’t do it in vain.

This is a version of a paper I wrote for school. Hope it makes you think.

               Everyone knows that sex sells. It has been used to sell just about everything imaginable, from cars, cigars, and beer to political aspirations (would Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman be so successful on the national stage if they weren’t attractive?). As effective as it is though, it can only really be considered, at best, the number two selling tactic, for the simple reason that it lacks the universality of the number one tactic, fear. Not everyone can be motivated by lust. The very young and the very old, at least, are practically immune to it. Everyone, however, is capable of fear. Sex is also very subjective (what trips one persons’ trigger may not do anything for the next person), and therefore much less psychologically contagious than fear. Fears are much more commonly shared across all demographics. Through fear, people can be motivated to act, not only irrationally, but in ways that are counter to their own self-interest, both personally and societally. People with something to sell, whether it is cosmetics, male enhancement products, or national security know this, and are ever ready to make the most of it.

          President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933) once said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Randy Newman, in his song, “A Few Words in Defense of Our Country”, (2008) added, “Now it seems like we’re supposed to be afraid. It’s patriotic in fact, and color coded.” Fear has been used to motivate us since the beginning of time. To keep this fairly short though, I’ll restrict myself to American history. From the time of the Salem Witch trials, through the present, we have never run short of people and things to be afraid of, both nationally (Indians, Yankees, Confederates, Blacks, immigrants, Germans, Japanese, Russians, Cubans, Mexicans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Communists, Fascists, hippies, conservatives, liberals, voter fraud, unions, nukes, our own government, etc.), and personally (gays, women’s lib., pedophiles, too many guns, not enough guns, the clergy, serial killers, surveillance, welfare exploitation, ourselves because we’re not thin enough, sexy enough, virile enough, smart enough, or rich enough, and everybody that is not just like us.). That is okay, though, because there is always someone who has the answer, and so we get sold diet pills, masculine enhancements, plastic surgery, reservations, internment camps, backyard bomb shelters, gated communities, home owners’ associations, proposals for voter restrictions, armed guards and metal detectors in schools, computer software, home security systems, drones, wars, and Guantanamo Bay.

          Arguably, the biggest beneficiary of our fears is the defense industry. As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers posed to our freedoms from the military industrial complex. He stated, “This conjunction of an immense military establishment, and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government …We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” This from the man who rode his successes as Allied Supreme Commander in WWII, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and NATO Supreme Commander into the white house in 1953. In the same speech, he warned of, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money…we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” In this modern era, the defense, science, and technology fields are so intrinsically intertwined as to pose a double threat to our freedoms and way of life without actually seeming to make us any safer. They never seem to eliminate any of the things that we fear, and often seem to just make things worse. Just as the 1960 U-2 incident caused further strains on U.S.-Soviet relations, can there be any doubt that the current spate of surveillance of foreign leaders has damaged the security of our nation? Have the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made us any safer?

          It is not just about international threats, either. In these days of cyber-espionage, and cyber-wars, anyone with a computer is considered a threat. In his column on data security, Robert Cringely (2013) writes, “Here’s the genius of this new threat: every country, every company, every technically smart individual can be seen as presenting a cyber threat ….The threat of cyber warfare will drive defense and intelligence spending for the next half-century. It will never be conquered, nor do the warriors really even want that to happen since their livelihoods would go away.” It causes concern, not just because of the possible, if not inevitable, violations of our civil rights, but because, face it, surveilling most of us is a complete waste of time and resources. It is hard to imagine anything more fruitless or pointless than listening to the conversations or reading the e-mails of 99 percent of all Americans. We are just not that interesting, let alone threat-ening. Monitoring our internet usage would be far more depressing and disturbing than anything else. One has to wonder how many NSA analysts have been driven to madness by the sheer quantity of pornography and cute kitten videos they are exposed to.

          Possibly even more disturbing than government surveillance is commercial surveillance, but we all seem to be okay with that. For the sake of saving a few pennies, we join grocery clubs, fuel clubs, etc., happily swiping away with our loyalty cards, knowing full well that information on our purchases is being stored, monitored and analyzed so that corporations can target us with deals tailored to our every need, want, and desire. The very inefficiency of government provides some degree of comfort. Not so with corporations. If money is speech, as the Supreme Court would have us believe, then there is far more to be learned about us and our lives by what we buy than what we say. We all talk a lot of nonsense, but we spend our money on what matters to us. If information is power, then corporations have the means to exercise far more power over us than the government ever will, and from more cynical and sinister motives. But it is okay with us, because we just saved 5₵ on a gallon of gas.

          In these days, when opinions are presented as facts, and propaganda is indistinguishable from news, everyone from advertisers to preachers to pundits are ready, willing, and able to capitalize on our every fear and insecurity. If, for some reason, we are not afraid of something, they are happy to supply us with a multitude of reasons why we should be, as well as some new book, program, product, weapon system or candidate to alleviate our newfound fear.

          We pride ourselves on being “The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave”, but are we really? If we are so brave, then what are we so afraid of? At what cost do we allow others to pander to, and manipulate, our fears?  Maybe what we need to do is teach ourselves to face up to our fears on our own. Take a little time to examine each fear and ask ourselves, “Is this really something I should be afraid of, and if so, is the solution offered worth the cost?” There are lots of scary things out there, and many genuine dangers. There always have been, and there always will be. All we can do is accept that, and face them as they come. It is ironic that for years we have been spouting the mantra, “If we give in to fear, then the terrorists win,” and then we flock to the sellers of terror for protection. We spend 20% of our federal budget on defense, and 3% on transportation infrastructure, 2% on education, and 2% on science and medical research. (Plumer, 2013). We keep getting better and better at killing people, but not so much at taking care of people. Maybe we need to take a long, hard look at our priorities, and ask ourselves if maybe they don’t need some major adjustments. Or maybe we just need to grow up and stop screaming like little girls at a slumber party every time Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Sarah Palin, or any of the other panic-mongers on either side of the political fence tell us a scary story.

References

Cringely, R. (2013, August). Eisenhower, Snowden, and the military industrial complex.

Retrieved from http://www.cringely.com/2013/08/14/eisenhower-snowden-and-the-military-industrial-complex/

Eisenhower, D. (n.d.). Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

          (1961). Retrieved from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=90&page=

          transcript/

Newman, R. (2008). A Few Words in Defense of Our Country. Retrieved from

          http://randynewman.com/category/music/albums/

Plumer, B. (2013, January 7). America’s staggering defense budget, in charts.

          Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/

          wonkblog/wp /2013/01/07/

Roosevelt, F. (n.d.) “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR’s First Inaugural

          Address. Retrieved from http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/