Sunday, August 11, 2002

Which Country Imprisons More Citizens Than Any Other in the World? If you guessed the U.S., you are right.  Here are the facts from the Economist as of 1999.  The scale of imprisonment in America is now unmatched in any democracy, and is greater than even most totalitarian governments have ever attempted. Last year one in every 150 American residents (children included) was behind bars. The rate of incarceration, at 668 inmates per 100,000 residents [In 2002 this is now 700 people in every 100,000], is five to ten times the rates of countries in Western Europe, six times the rate in Canada and nearly 20 times that in Japan. The number of Americans in prison has nearly quadrupled since 1980 and more than doubled since 1985. In todays editorial (no link because it is paid content), the conservative business magazine says "The result is a society that, statistically at least, is beginning to look a little like early Australia. Nearly one in eight American men has been convicted of a felony—and thus, in many states, has been automatically deprived of numerous rights, including the right to vote. One in 20 men has been to jail. The average is much higher among some groups (one black man in five has been to prison, one in three has been convicted of a felony). " Think about how close recent elections have been, and the fact that 1 out of 3 black men are barred from voting in most states.   Does anyone see a pattern here?  Our "freedom" is a myth when  drug laws and absurd mandatory sentencing leave a huge proportion of poor or minority men deprived of liberty and the right to vote. This years effort in New York to repeal disasterous drug sentencing laws that give higher sentences for non-violent first drug offenses than for many violent crimes such as rape and murder failed again due to Gov. Pataki.  No democratic candidate in any race should be allowed to duck this issue. 11:29:41 PM   comment []    Are we in the Majority Yet?—or Why Most People Don’t Think Like Us   Anyone who has been a long time leftist has to question why the majority of Americans don’t agree with him or her.  Or,  “if you’re so smart, why are you so marginalized.”   It is a fair question, and one answer—that other people are stupid or don’t care, is just plain wrong.  Sect after sect falls into this trap.   Unfortunately so do a lot of liberal democrats.  When you feel certain—whether about exploitation of labor, or the totalitarian thinking of John “the state is always right” Ashcroft, it is easy to blame others' laziness or stupidity when they don’t agree.  This is why much political debate sounds to the uncommitted like a harangue—the leftist is simply yelling at you not to be so stupid,  to open your eyes, to switch your position.   A core element of democracy (with a small “d”) is the trust it places in ordinary people.  Not everyone who votes or expresses an opinion on an issue needs to know any facts.  All people have a political right to hold and express their opinion, regardless of knowledge, authority, wealth, experience or any other criteria.    A second answer to this question of why more people don't agree with us is that many are bought off.  Increasing corporate power over the past twenty years has also been accompanied by rising living standards—so the trade-off for many Americans is to get benefits and security by giving up anti-corporate ideas and actions.  On a global scale, the West uses cheap energy, military dominence and a disproportionate share of resources to fuel a high living standard—and no Western society would willingly abandon the inequalities on which its living standards rest.  At least this is a rational response.   In thinking about how people can wrest control away from corporate interests and act in more collectively beneficial ways I have been intrigued with the idea of self-organizing systems.  This is a relatively new field, (see for example the Santa Fe Institute) applied to computer programs, to biological communities, to systems dynamics, and also to social organization.  The basic idea is that complex systems organize themselves into  one configuration out of many possible states of equilibrium, and that under the right circumstances, internal changes cause a shift to a new configuration with a new equilibrium.   Many political revolutions are examples of this.  The old social equilibrium loosened and suddenly new possibilities opened up which led to a new equilibrium.   So the role of a U.S. leftist is not winning a “majority” in the present situation, but acting as a catalyst, an example, a repository of ideas and actions, that in the right circumstances suddenly become widespread and popular.   The opposition to the war in Iraq can be seen in this way.  Many people feel war is a forgone conclusion, and that opposition is almost futile.  I think the issue is very much in play—not because of any moral consideration, but because of the split among Republicans about who would and would not benefit from the war, and the political fear among some Republicans about being focused on a foreign war with little popular support when the economy is collapsing at home.   This split, and the confusion over war strategy, provides an opportunity for the whole misadventure to be cast in a different light---it amplifies anti-war protests like our small vigils in Lexington, and heightens the risk for those who prosecute the war.    This shift in circumstances has made what at first seemed far-fetched—that domestic opposition could prevent Bush from attacking Iraq--- now more of a possibility.  So it is important for everyone to be vocal and public in opposition to the war.  The issue is in play, and all of a sudden, the “left” position of not attacking Iraq has a chance to win widespread popular and democratic support.       11:04:16 PM   comment []

© Copyright 2002 Toby Sackton. Last update: 12/26/2002; 9:29:42 PM.