Thus said Marie Antoinette (or the words are accredited to her) during the French Revolution. It is the cited as the height of insensitivity. While Paris was burning around her she assumed that the ordinary citizen had access to the delicacies that were afforded only to the rich. Completely out of touch. She paid with her head. Why these thoughts at the time that we are ushering in a New Year?
I saw a very moving piece of the plight of the impoverished middle class in America. You can see the segment at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/poverty_12-30.html. The piece does not examine the plight of street people but focuses on ordinary people (and some extraordinary people) who have fallen on hard times due to the recent economic implosions in the United States. We meet a mother with two master degrees who had to go to the food bank to feed her children. We meet people who have given up trying to find a job and who will probably never work again. These are middle class folk who have been caught up in an economic storm that is as cataclysmic today as the French Revolution was for its time. The selling point for the American way of life was the American Dream. This was supposed to mean that everyone had a fair chance at an eduction, could find a job for life, could have and support a family and could look forward to a reasonable retirement. All gone. They say that the American economy is coming back. Don't believe it.
In Canada we know the meaning of "two solitudes". They are called solitudes, I suppose, because we have two groups who operate within their own spheres of influence that don't interact. It works for awhile but when meaningful interaction is required there is little or no means by which it can occur. When reasonable people can't speak they often resort to violence to make their point. The FLQ in Quebec is a good example. When the French aristocracy could not empathize with the common folk the matter was resolved by revolution. In countries where there was a reasonable chain of communication between classes (such as England) change was gradual but peaceful. What does this have to do with the poor in America? Or Canada for that matter?
Being a citizen in a country implies a social contract. This is a mutually exchanged set of promises between the state and the citizen that assures a reasonable existence for the individual. In Canada the social contract includes a social safety net that everyone takes for granted--as they should. This is what they bought into when they agreed to be citizens--by birth or otherwise. In the United States the social contract always included the American Dream. Take away that aspect and you have a significant default of the social contract. In Canada, no matter who is to blame, there is a significant default in our social contract with our aboriginal people. In both cases we have groups of people shouting to other groups of people, neither of which hear each other. In the Middle East you have a similar phenomenon. Where this lapse of communication persists long enough one group decides that no amount of shouting will get them heard. So the shouting escalates to violence. We have seen it among our aboriginal people and we have seen it in the Arab Spring. And we will see it in America.
The 99% Occupy (fill in the blank) movement was a poor beginning at trying to create a meaningful dialogue between the aristocrats and politicians on the one hand and the middle class. Seen as latter day hippies no one took that movement seriously. However, the Arab Spring movement has not gone unnoticed in the United States. Recently a 100,000 name petition (on Facebook) was presented to Verizon over a $2 charge. The charge was removed. The wake up call has been made. Is anyone listening.
The rupture in the American social contract is fundamental. There is an almost complete disconnect between the people that govern the nation and those who would be governed. Within that disconnect there is a level of ingenuousness by the governing class that would make Marie Antoinette proud. Within the disconnect on the electorate is a disquieting feeling that the only thing that politicians do is feather their own nest. If the disconnect continues history has shown us that violence soon follows.
In the case of the Canadian aboriginal people there are those that argue that no amount of money can rescue aboriginals from themselves. However, Canada entered into a social contract with aboriginals and has consistently failed to live up to its promises. The result has been inaction by successive governments, wholesale fraud by some aboriginal leaders and, for the rank and file poverty that would make Palestinian refugee camp look like paradise. The aboriginals can, and will, raise hell. But will the politicians respond? Is there a fundamental disconnect between these two groups that can only be resolved by violence. In the US there has been better resolution of aboriginal problems. We could learn from them.
So, as the New Year comes upon us it is a time to reflect on what our role will be in upholding our social contract. Will be be part of the population that never votes? Will we be part of the population that does not urge his or her political representative to "do the right thing?". Will we be the part of the population that turns his or her back on the less fortunate? Will we say, in modern terms, "let them eat cake".
I wish you a healthy and serene happy New Year.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment