The point about greed is especially telling. Palin and McCain wag their fingers at greedy Wall Street investors. (Actually, Palin said that investors “rear the head of abuse” — whatever on earth that means). But, of course Wall Street is greedy. Greed — that “sacred hunger”* — is what fuels capitalism. As you say here, “greed” is not even a diagnosis, much less a solution. What, are the Republicans going to end greed on Wall Street (much like they are trying to end “evil” in the rest of the world)? No. Democrats don’t talk about ending greed. They talk about regulating it. Whatever is legal/lawful is justified. So you make certain behaviors that emerge from greed (not greed itself) actually illegal (like bundling bad mortgages and selling them as safe). This is what the New Deal did — and is why the real culprit of this current crisis is the cumulative Republican (with lots of Democratic support I should add) dismantling of the New Deal, including, especially, perhaps, the 1999 bill which got rid of Glass-Steagall (which actually separated commercial from investment banking — so that a bank could not take your mortgage and risk it in some highly speculative venture). It seems very simple to me. Look at history: no regulation leads to Gilded Age, Great Depression, and the current crisis. Moderate regulation leads to stronger economy, widespread prosperity, and a genuine middle class (and don’t kid yourself about the existence of an American middle class today — what we call the middle class is so bouyed by consumer debt that one little change will plunge it all into the proletariat).

Your last point here about the founders is absolutely on target. It seems to me that the fundamental flaw in libertarian and right-wing GOP ideology is its naivete about power and lack of a historical sense. This absolute trust that the unregulated market — which is really unchecked power — will somehow redound to everyone’s good in the end, is astonishing in its lack of understanding about power and remarkably unattuned to a sense of history.

More current events, please!

*from Barry Unsworth, Sacred Hunger (see page 328): “The ships come in and trade on the edges [of Africa]. You may think only the edges are fouled with this trade but it is not so. the flood of cheap manufactures, for which the people have no need, destroys their industries. They become dependent on this trade and the demand for goods can only be met by enslaving their fellows. To do this they need muskets in ever increasing quantities — which we supply. And so we spread death everywhere. But that sacred hunger we spoke of justifies all. The trade is lawful, they say, and that is enough…. Money is sacred, as everyone knows… So then must be the hunger for it and the means we use to obtain it. Once a man is in debt he becomes a flesh and blood form of money, a walking investment. You can do what you like with him, you can work him to death or you can sell him. This cannot be called cruelty or greed because we are seeking only to recover our investment and that is a sacred duty” (325).

Ben asked the question “Are we really a tolerant and loving society for thinking this way?” This is a good lead-in to what I was going to say, even though several people have sort of touched on it. American society today is based so much around us, as individuals, fighting for the highest rung in life. Society in this context almost takes on the image of a race, in that the more people “knocked out”, the better we will do. If a murderer is viewed in that light, naturally the response will be “what a terrible person…I could never do something like that” or something similar.

Halttunen makes a similar comment when she writes:

“Early American execution ritual held up the murderer in chains, not to invite the audience to indulge in a collective sense of moral superiority, but to force the people to confront their own common identity with the vilest of sinners, and to acknowledge that there but for the grace of God went every innately depraved sinner in New England.”

The highlighted area is somewhat how I view today’s practices. We put the criminal through a public display, and all it accomplishes most of the time is giving the audience an opportunity to say “I’m a much better person than that”. Is it really that difficult for anyone to see an aspect of the murderer in themselves?

Our teachers may not be able to beat their students anymore, but there are other ways of punishing students. The one rule my high school had which kept me conforming to their rules was if you got a detention you had to serve it during lunch time, this was the worst sort of punishment since I did not have a lot of classes with my friends so lunch time was the one time that I had to see all of them, if I had gotten a detention I would not get to see them. It was like being grounded by the school. Hardly anyone disobeyed for fear of not seeing their friends that day.

We are definitly being taught to conform, even if it is only with subtle hints.