Philosopher-King....a heady title

Chris's Letter to the Iowans

If you just want to cut to the chase, scroll down to the bold.

Why now?  To try to change the narrative...to bump the political machine off its tracks and maybe get people to believe that there can be a national consensus....and to get it out there before the next election.

Why, at all?  Because a world moving in an intended, positive, and logical direction will probably shed many of its ills simply because people can again believe that things will be OK. 

Disclaimer: I write this knowing full well it may embarrass friends, family, children,

grandchildren, and my dear supportive wife.

Disclaimer 2: Everything here applies to anyone who has ever lived in and felt part of a community. Iowa is not important, human experience is.

Disclaimer 3:  Yes, I know it rambles and could be much better organized....shoot me.

On shooting from the hip-

In American lore of the Old West, this was always considered to be a manly way of dealing

with problems...even of life in general, but the problem with that is the propensity not to clear the holster cleanly, resulting in the loss of an occasional toe.

     The concept of writing this letter is simply crazy....good crazy.  Imagining that people could or would listen to a bit of raving from someone with very few accepted credentials is a rather lunatic idea. But.....why am I crazy?  I'll tell you....it's YOU!  YOU make me crazy!  YOU put up with idiocy far beyond anything I could ever hope to produce if I had a hundred lifetimes.  YOU put up with pollution by all facets of society...from local waste to over-use of farm chemicals to corporate abuse. YOU put up with mediocre food from boxes when you once knew how to grow and prepare wonderful meals.  And YOU vote for candidates for public office who have been primarily picked by a political machine that seeks to extend its own life beyond far its useful years.  YOU are responsible for what is happening and only YOU can change it.  Oh....and by YOU, ….I mean me.

Why write to the Iowans?

     I am an Iowan.  I grew up in Iowa, lived the first 30 years of my life in Iowa, the first two-thirds of that firmly tied to several small towns, any of which many would think of as 'nowhere' as most of them have a population of less than 350, none over 2,000.  I dearly love the type of people who live there, even though I suspect many would prefer to disinherit this particular son who would be considered a prodigal, were repentance and return in my future.   And I have an abiding faith in small-town Mid-westerners to react to unusual ideas with a mixture of good sense and positive regard....if only they will reserve judgment to the signature of this bit of philosophy.  I cannot shake the conviction that, given cool heads and careful avoidance of certain topics, consensus regarding the state of the world can be achieved, and once achieved, certain actions can be taken.

     Why would any Iowan give anything I might say the slightest regard?  A fair question since many would look at my life's trajectory with severe misgivings as to the results.  I can almost hear one certain old classmate saying “He's got book smarts, but no common sense.”  There are several possible responses to that criticism, even one of partial agreement.  But 'common sense' needs a definition ....we'll get to the 'book-smarts' later.

     I believe some of my ancestors to have been cave dwellers where common sense might have been things like;

1. Hunt in the daytime.
2. Keep the fire going or go through the tedious process of rebuilding it, and
3. Don't upset the big guy.

You can leave that last one off if you are the big guy. Maybe you can leave them all off if you are the big guy and can get other people to hunt for you and build your fires.

     The thing about common sense is that it has evolved at least as quickly as humanity.  One man's common sense could be another's folly.  Somehow, I don't imagine a Roman Senator, a Roman soldier, and a Roman slave all had the same sense of what was necessary for survival.  Jump ahead a few hundred years and not looking like a witch might be common sense, or planting your crops by the moon, or making sure your sword is sharp and your horse well fed.  Again, your so-called common sense is not so common after all.  So, what is there about common sense that makes it 'common'.  If it's truly 'common', it must be more general than the specific survival skills of the moment or of any particular station in life.

     What sense is there that would apply to all humanity in equal parts?...which seems the only way it could be really 'common'.  Is it common sense to kill off your neighbors and take their stuff in the 'survival of the fittest' mode of operation?  There don't seem to be a lot of options to human interaction, kill them or cooperate with them.  We have, it seems for the moment, chosen cooperation, at least on a person to person scale.  Daily life is simpler when we can choose to go about generally unhindered by armament.  It would seem that socially, cooperation and common sense have a lot in common.

     But what about an individual who looks around and wishes to apply some common sense to every-day life?  What sense is there that you can look to for answers to specific questions like:

1. What jobs should I apply for?
2. What major is best for me in college?
3. What career is a good choice?

Life looked fairly simple from the perspective of a small-town kid who found school easy and always heard the message that hard work pays off.  Common sense seemed like a good bet and not that far off....even if it still had no real definition.

     Then I read a book, not my first, but my first, freely chosen book about a serious subject.  A book about a 100 year old educational system that out-performed anything I had ever experienced.  The explanations fit together like a well-oiled machine and I could not imagine why, with this method in existence, our American school system was the dinosaur it was.... and still is.  Anyone who knows me is aware that the system is Montessori and that it strives to offer children individualized educational experiences that maximize both their abilities and their developmental levels.

     Since then, I have tried to do a lot of reading, and when those books happen to be about education, religion, society, history, and government, the authors are always somewhat successful in getting me on board with their particular take on the subject at hand, which is their goal.  I listen.  And when I find an opportunity, I try their points out in conversation, invariably finding myself far less convincing, perhaps because I'm not always convinced myself, than the original because I just can't hold all the detail of the argument in my mind long enough or completely enough to use it in a coherent manner, at least in real time. But that's not exactly to the point.  The point is that I have come back to the book-smarts mentioned earlier and I must say that I believe strongly that books have, if anything, honed my common sense far beyond anything granted me at birth, as well as more than anything I might have learned at the local coffee shop.

Interlude-

I've tried to write this little essay a few times in the past and always get to about this point and find that it wants to naturally diverge in so many directions as to become unmanageable.  What with applicable side-bars like religion, politics, conspiracy, ecology, and globalization all having fairly legitimate claims on what makes good common sense, it is all but impossible to make much beyond surface comments as there are countless books devoted to all aspects of anything I might mention.

Religion

     I mentioned religion first because, quite frankly, I may as well alienate as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time and spare them the trouble of reading the rest of this little epistle.  So if you believe that either Jesus or the Anti-Christ is coming soon, or simply that the end of the world is at hand, as has been thought by some for several centuries now, there is little point in speaking to you of pollution, or politics, or the future of your grandchildren because you hold the fatalistic view than mankind is doomed, and my goal is not to change what you believe because where changing your mind is concerned, I am fatalistic as I think you are immune to logic.

     If, however, just-in-case you can consider the 'just-in-case' argument of some Christians to accept the Lord just-in-case you get the chance to go to heaven, I offer this.  Just-in-case the Lord does not plan to destroy the earth as we know it, could we consider taking the best care we know how of the planet and try to leave something that makes good common sense for our children and grandchildren to work with?

     As I know very little about the details of other religions I won't go into a lot of detail other than see if I can offend them all.

     Jews are behaving fairly atrociously towards Palestinians and are pretty much the originators of socialism, so how do Christians who support Israel also vow to defeat creeping socialism in America.... by getting rid of those national parks?

     At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I wonder how the Jews could expect great treatment at the hands of other religions by claiming they are God's chosen people. That statement breeds lasting resentment and reminds me so much of the old Smother's Brothers routine where Tommy says “Mom always like you best.”

     The Jews pretty much invented the modern religions of both Islam and Christianity, and all three have had splinter groups across the spread of history to the point of absurdity.   Said absurdity has not kept them from trying to kill each other off.

     Having said as much against Jewry as I care to, their focus on education, the arts, and taking care of their own is truly remarkable and a model that many Christians would do well to heed, rather than taking the anti-intellectual approach that is found increasingly in the world.

     Islam has some sectors that are anything but godly, but I have yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like. Buddhists, Hindus of all flavors, and Confucians all have ideas that seem both admirable and capable of contributing well to the modern world....the best of these, at a glance, is 'restraint'.

     Still here?  Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Ecology

     Not to pound the Christians too hard...but, again, if you can't take care of the world as you would take care of your own home, what can you be thinking?   In 100 years, assuming we last so long, unchecked manufacturing will have irreversibly depleted most of the metal/chemical/natural resources on the planet, to say nothing of the pollution.

     Boring as it can be, economics is really the key.  I have a friend, a retired corporate accountant,  who says he doesn't want my socialist world for his grandchildren, that it's market forces that have driven the world for centuries and the freedom of the market is the only proper way for things to operate freely, fairly, and efficiently, and that attempts to control the markets have smacked of socialism which has always ended in failure.  I would counter-argue that allowing people with money total freedom to act as they please has also always ended in failure thanks to their tendency to pay the lowest possible wages, give the fewest benefits, and use the cheapest materials they can get away with, resulting in revolutions, trade unions, and the Ford Gremlin.  So let's not point too many fingers.  Rather, let's touch on a couple more points and move on to solutions.

     “Small business is the backbone of America” was part of a bit done by John Oliver on “Last Week Tonight” which made a mockery of politicians who used that phrase in speeches.  It was hilarious, especially given that politicians are notorious for giving corporations tax breaks, land deals, and endless other incentives in the name of corporate profit and corporate jobs, almost entirely so they can get campaign donations from those corporations, but also so they can brag about bringing home jobs.

     Considering the entire earth is beyond most human comprehension.   Exactly what is happening in its interior, especially since we have yet to explore and understand everything that is going on near the surface, it would seem that common sense would point out that the earth is finite.  It has limits both to what can be taken from it and what can be done to it and still maintain its ability to support life.

     Adding to the earth being beyond our immediate comprehension is the idea that we are truly "Star-Trekking Across the Universe".  In addition to the speed of our galaxy through the void, the speed of our sun as it orbits the galaxy, and the speed of our trips around the sun, is the fact that we are "going where no man has gone before" by having a steadily increasing earthly population in the billions.  We can neither know what effects we are having on the planet nor know exactly how to fix problems that may occur simply because there is no precedent.  There is no owner's manual, no repair manual, and certainly no place to get parts should things start to fail.

     I sat in a bar one night talking to a young farmer who was having a difficult time getting started.  I asked why, with the research proving better nutrition, the deleterious effects of chemical run-off from farmland, and even the profit advantages, did he not consider organic farming.  His response was quick and short, “The banks won't loan money for that.”  So what does common sense tell you in that situation?  I say it's some business sense that says you have to go along with the bank, but is it 'sense' when you don't have many options?..... and that common sense tells you the costs to the world at large are not worth the risks.

Conspiracy

     I read a book about many of the conspiracy theories of the past 50+ years.  Let it suffice to say that conspiracies must and do exist.  Why?  Because all it takes is 2 people who agree to do anything, accomplish anything, plan anything out of the public eye for their own benefit for conspiracy to exist.  The popular treatment of conspiracy by the mainstream press is to look down their nose with a disbelieving expression of disdain while uttering the words "Conspiracy theorist."...while ignoring facts like corporations hiding their pollution so houses can be built on the polluted ground, or an auto maker teaching its cars to misreport pollution or mileage data.  Don't tell me conspiracy doesn't exist, tell me why we allow it.

Globalization

     This is a double-edged sword that is unlikely to be placed back into its Pandora's box.  What matters is what we do with it.  Do I want my small town invaded by a bunch of strangers from another country?  Probably not, but then, neither did the Native Americans in the 1600s when settlers began to arrive.  It can be difficult, too, to feel a moral obligation to help another country treat its citizens with respect, to help it rid itself of corruption, and to lead it forward as a nation....especially when your own government lacks respect for the people and is riddled with corruption.

     Without intending to sound elitist, I like the idea of, mostly, somewhat stable national boundaries and stable populations.  Why?  Because it implies that people are happy where they are and feel no need to try to make it elsewhere.  It allows for the development of local culture, maintains existing culture, and creates interesting differences for tourists to experience.

     Globalism simply for the sake of selling your stuff all over the world and having wide open national boundaries seems like it would make everywhere too much the same.  Too much nationalism can create hostility, but having enough for a bit of national pride seems like a good deal.  Balance, people.

     I have lived a life that I've tried to fill with enjoyment, fun, family, and community.  All I wish for the future is to pass that opportunity on to others, regardless of their country of origin.  

Politics

Socialism: You have two cows. Give one cow to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. Give both cows to the government, and they may give you some of the milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. You give all of the milk to the government, and the government sells it.

Nazism: You have two cows. The government shoots you and takes both cows.

Anarchism: You have two cows. Keep both of the cows, shoot the government agent and steal another cow.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Sell one cow and buy a bull.

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government makes you take harmonica lessons.

     I'd like to add a modern option to this take on politics and society.

Corporatism: You own a small, successful dairy. A corporation notices your success and buys not only your business, but all similar businesses. If you won't sell, they lower the prices of dairy products until you are either forced to sell or go out of business. They raise the wages and benefits of management so they can hire the best people, lower the wages and reduce the benefits of the people doing the work to maximize profit, raise the prices of dairy products until the workers can barely afford what they produce, and place the business into the 'open' stock market so people who wouldn't recognize a cow if they saw one can make money while they golf.

     When attending the estate sale of my parents, I saw a man wearing an anti-Obama t-shirt saying, approximately:

“I'll keep my religion,

my job,

my house,

and my health care

...you can keep the CHANGE!”

     At the time, as a semi-staunch Obama believer, I really thought the guy with the shirt should get his head out of the sand and allow some positive change to happen.  After all, this country was in a deep depression in my father's childhood, a huge economic boom during much of his adult life and my own childhood, and we have all seen some serious ups and downs as well as some amazing technological developments. In other words, change is coming and there ain't nuthin' you can do about it...except, just maybe, try to steer it in some positive directions.

     While I still think there's little evidence to claim that Obama was anti-American, strongly socialist, or bad for the country, I do think that amazing little change took place other than somehow the divisions within America were deepened and intensified.  The lack of real change was disappointing, and my liberal friends are quick to blame the conservatives for having blocked the Democrats at every turn.  Sure, there was some of that, but the real failure came in not addressing the changes that would capture the public imagination.  All the visible effort went into changing the health care system, and those changes were primarily cosmetic and/or directed at requiring compliance rather than controlling costs or abuses by the industry.  No effort was made at all regarding getting corporate money out of politics, or towards setting term limits on politicians, or on controlling environmental damage.

     And there, my friend (if you are still such), is the real heart of this essay.  I firmly believe that America voted a questionable character like Donald Trump into office as a knee-jerk reaction very similar to that which carried Jesse Ventura into the governorship of Minnesota. I don't wish to get into any kind of debate about what either did for their respective constituencies, either good or bad, when the point is that Americans are fed up with politics-as-usual, and the Trump election clearly represents that frustration. Putting Hilary into office would have come as close to a slap in the face as an election can come....and Trump's election pretty much returned the favor. The only things I wish to say about Trump as president are:

1. He's all about feeding corporations.
2. He's not really very presidential.

     Now, you are probably saying to yourself...”Ah, here comes the liberal pitch.”  And in one sense, you are correct....I am all about change, but I am not necessarily all about liberal.  One of the memes that both Red and Blue America seem to agree on is that Congress is locked in a stalemate, that members there are elected on big promises, that they change their tune once in office because they can't get anything done if they stand alone on the issues, and they don't get re-elected without donations from the Party Machine, be it Democrat or Republican.  Proof?  How many third-party candidates have you seen get elected?

     My solution?  It's quite simple really, just not necessarily easy as it requires faith in your fellow Americans to do as you might do.  DO NOT vote for ANY candidates who have 8 years or more of any significant political experience.  Former Governor?  “Sorry, you've served your time.”  Member of Congress?  “Eight years and out.  No promotions, no demotions, no more political office higher than a very small-town mayor-ship”  Big-city mayor?  “Too much chance of having connections not in the best interest of the country.”  Elect people who want to solve problems. (period)

     I can't say I know exactly how to go about this.  Maybe managing to vote in just one president with this perspective and listen to his recommendations for voting in other problem solvers would do it.  But I do think it's very much about voting out all Congresspeople who are currently in office.  We need a clean slate and the system is rigged to change only a few at a time, so sustained effort over 6 years is required.  If it can happen just once, it can happen twice.  If the American public speaks loudly enough for common-sense and logic aimed at creating a real and clean future, politicians will fall by the way and be replaced by our neighbors.

     We have been voting for candidates chosen from the top down for far too long.  Yes, Trump is the exception, but his desire to allow corporations into protected lands at the expense of the environment is enough to see him pushed out for a better, more thoughtful, option.

     And what about all those Democrats vying for the chance to run against Trump.  Although I've tended to vote Democratic for years, I too, have lost faith and feel that none of those running should be elected.  Virtually anyone who has not been a career politician is what is needed....someone with a clear vision of where we might go but is simply intending to make things truly better for the future of humanity.  My apologies to all you would-be presidential candidates....you all have too much experience....and you are all trying to TELL us what we need when all you need to do is ASK.

     Yep....I'm an environmentalist.  If it isn't trying to move toward organic farming for all, public transportation that minimalizes pollution, private transportation that does the same, mining and other extractive processes to be limited by real need rather than profit, allowing for all the old-growth forests still in existence to be saved, and a host of other neighborly choices, it's not making good common sense.  A good pet owner doesn't put her dog in a small cage for long periods and expect them to live in filth....and a good neighbor should have the same consideration.