What Is Government For? Lane Kenworthy, Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona, and author of Progress for the Poor, Jobs with Equality, Egalitarian Capitalism and In Search of National Economic Success, talks with Democratic Perspective about American attitudes toward government, and how the rise of economic inequality since the 1970s has affected them.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Democratic Perspective posed the question to Lane Kenworthy, Professor of Sociology and Political Science at the University of Arizona and author of Progress for the Poor, Jobs with Equality, Egalitarian Capitalism and In Search of National Economic Success.
We began the discussion with a couple of quotes on the subject, one by Abraham Lincoln, “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.”
The second is by Jared Bernstein, “If too many Americans don’t believe in or understand what government does to help them, to offset recessions, to protect their security in retirement and in hard times, to maintain the infrastructure, to provide educational opportunities and health care decent enough to offset the disadvantages so many are born with…if those functions are unknown, underfunded, and/or carried out poorly, why should they care about how much this deal or the next one cuts?”
Then we turned to Kenworthy for his perspective.
“People take for granted all of the things that government can do,” he responded. “Protecting our physical safety with the police and military, money, clean air and water, liberty, sewage and water, disaster protection, to name a few. The insurance portion of government is also important, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and an array of smaller programs.”
“That’s not to say that government works perfectly,” he continued. “It doesn’t. But it is necessary.”
When asked to explain the anti-government sentiment in today’s politics, Kenworthy replied, “We have a long history of public opinion surveys. A lot will say that government should be smaller. But when you mention individual programs, the same people think we should be spending more. 20 percent of Americans believe deeply in smaller government,” he continued. “A big part of the reason is the economic crisis. When the economy is bad, a bigger share say they don’t have any confidence in government, or even the private sector. They want to blame someone for their problems.”
Finally, we asked Kenworthy to elaborate on one of his previous statements, “Although themes of opportunity and prosperity dominate American culture, more than one in ten Americans is poor according to the official government measure, inequality has increased markedly over the past generation, and the United States is more unequal than any other affluent country.”
“Things began to change in the 1970s,” he said. “During the period following WWII, we saw living standards and real income double in a generation. Since the 70s, progress has not changed. The economy grew, but wage growth slowed. And now the poverty rated is even higher after the crash.”
To read more from Lane Kenworthy, visit his blog at Consider the Evidence.
Scapegoating Immigrants: Is There a Better Way To Deal With the Issue of Immigration? Part 2 of Democratic Perspective’s interview with Aviva Chomsky. If you have a situation like the one we have in the U.S., in which the economic conditions in a neighboring country are terrible, there is an economic need to fill jobs here which no citizen will take at the wages likely to be offered, and there is no legal path to immigration for more than a few thousand people a year from that neighboring country, is simply declaring immigrants illegal and deporting them all really a solution to our mutual problem? Why comprehensive immigration reform is both necessary and inevitable.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
As Democratic Perspective continued its interview with the author of They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigration, we began by asking if the immigration problem is just too big to solve. She responded by saying, “It depends on how you define the problem; whether you’re talking about human rights or economics.”
“In reality, the problem is mostly for the immigrants themselves,” she continued. “They have been pushed out of their homes by the international economy and denied human rights. To solve the problem, you have to start with human rights. Legislation such as the Dream Act could help. So would allowing them to get driver’s licenses and rejecting the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program.”
Speaking specifically about the Dream Act, Chomsky admitted she couldn’t understand why it hasn’t passed. “It would allow a path for citizenship only for those brought here before age 12,” said Chomsky. “It would require them to attend college or serve in our military for two years.”
“The real problem is that most people believe that there is a path to citizenship,” she continued. “You hear them say immigrants should ‘do it the right way.’ But there is no path to citizenship now. Many of those arrested are those who are re-entering the country. They went back to Mexico for some reason then try to get back to their families and homes here.”
When asked about public opinion and anti-immigrant laws such as Arizona’s SB1070, Chomsky replied, “Public opinion is very malleable. It depends on the information they’re given. Immigration reform almost passed under Bush. But the Tea Party won’t consider it. The debate on immigration is a way of creating a scapegoat for very real problems, like the economy, even the environment. They talk about going back to some mythical moment,” she said. “I ask them, ‘When, exactly?’ There has always been immigration and inequality in the US. And the human race has benefited from multi-culturalism since it began.”
That’s the title of a book by Avi Chomsky who was interviewed by Democratic Perspective. As a historian, teacher, and coordinator of the Latin American studies at Salem State College, she has become a strong voice for fairness in our economic system.
When asked about the title of her book, Ms. Chomsky replied, “When people say that immigrants take our jobs, underlying the statement are some flawed ideas of how our economy works. They don’t understand that the world economy is extremely integrated.”
“In the US, there is a dual labor market,” she continued. “One category consists of good jobs that offer security, benefits, decent pay and safe working conditions. The second category consists of jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant with no security and low wages. The jobs in the second category have always been done by those who are politically excluded, such as undocumented workers. By politically excluding workers, employers are able to exploit them. And others in our society rely on people doing these jobs.”
Of course, the question most often heard in a “debate” on immigration is “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” Although it’s intended to be a conversation stopper, Chomsky said she usually responds by saying, “What part of illegal do you understand?” She said, “The status of illegal immigrant has been created for a reason. It’s a status that gives workers no rights.”
“Compared to the jobs shipped overseas by our corporations, the jobs taken by illegals are a very small percentage,” she continued. “Every job has global connections. In reality, immigrants who come to the US create jobs because they are also consumers. They purchase food and automobiles, and they rent or buy homes. They also pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, even Social Security. In 2010, it’s estimated that illegals paid $12 billion into Social Security. But they are not eligible for any of the government services provided by those taxes.”
Are They REALLY Taking Our Jobs? Myths About Undocumented Immigrants. Aviva Chomsky is an American historian, author, and activist who has written extensively on immigration issues. She teaches at Salem State College in Massachusetts, where she is also the coordinator of the Latin American studies program. On this Monday’s Democratic Perspective, she discusses how the principle of political exclusion operates in our economy to guarantee a supply of labor for nasty, difficult jobs at wages that employers can justify to their investors. If slavery is no longer an option, doesn’t declaring a class of laborers illegal serve almost as well in its stead? Why animosity toward immigrants has a more destructive effect on our state economy than most Arizonans are currently willing to admit.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
The End of Extreme Politics in Arizona? Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, reflects on the partisan divisions in Arizona politics. He tells Democratic Perspective that the only real way to improve the governance in our state is to pay more attention to the political mainstream. He points to the increase in Independent voter registrations, and the efforts being made during the current redistricting process to increase the number of competitive districts in the state as grounds for hope that Republicans and Democrats will finally be forced to stop pointing fingers at one another and start dealing reasonably with Arizona’s problems.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Democratic Perspective had an opportunity to visit with Andrei Cherny, former Arizona assistant attorney general, White House aide, business consultant and current Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.
We began by asking him about the political environment in Arizona. He responded by saying, “My goal is to push politics in a better direction. Arizona is crying out for leadership. We have so many problems – the budget, turning around our schools and making our streets safer.” But Cherny says the Democratic Party has been unable to focus attention on those problems. “Democrats have a great group of people in the legislature, but they’re a super minority so they can’t have much of an impact,” he said.
“We need to push politics to the mainstream and away from extremes,” Cherny continued. “People are sick and tired of partisan politics.” He pointed to the growing number of independents in the state. “Republicans currently have a registration advantage, but voter registration is virtually one-third Republican, one-third Democrat and one-third Independent. Soon the number of independents will be bigger than either Republicans or Democrats. In the long run that will be good for state politics.”
In speaking about the current redistricting effort that will redraw the lines for legistlative districts and give Arizona another Congressional Representative, Cherny called it “The most important development in 20 years. Right now, only 3 of the 30 legislative districts are competitive. That has pushed politics to extremes because the candidates didn’t have to compete. The goal of the Independent Redistricting Commission is to seek 8, 9 or 10 competitive districts. Republicans see that as a threat. They want to continue their extreme stances. In fact, Speaker of the House, Andy Tobin has threatened to remove the independent Chair of the Commission. But fortunately, Arizona is one of only 13 states that have taken gerrymandering power away from the legislature. “
“Why aren’t we talking about jobs?” he asked. “The answer is extreme politics. When the 2012 session starts, we’ll have had five years of the worst economy Arizona has seen and the legislature has done nothing about it.”
On July 18, Democratic Perspective continued its interview with Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky by asking how we should deal with the fear of immigration. He responded by saying, “We deal with it by a sympathetic understanding and education. We can understand their problems and fears. It’s been the same all through history. The understanding that people have rights; that animals have rights; that nature has rights, that’s a gradually expanding sphere in human history and it has to go farther.”
On the Middle East and the so-called Arab Spring, Chomsky stated, “The US, historically, and indeed up to the present moment has been supporting dictatorships – blocking democracy and development. We do so because we want to control their energy supplies. Those are the words of the National Security Council from a report during the Eisenhower administration.”
“In the case of the Arab Spring,” he continued, “The US and its allies are terrified of it. And there are good reasons. To explain it, all you have to do is take a look at public opinion. In Egypt, 90 percent think of the US as the main threat they face. 80 percent are so afraid of US policy they think the region would be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons.”
“If you look over the whole region,” Chomsky stated, “The numbers are not quite that high, but they’re relatively the same. What it means is, if public opinion was affecting public policy, the US should be kicked out of there. The policy President Obama has followed is our standard policy when a dictator is in trouble. You support your favorite dictator as long as possible. When it becomes impossible, then what you do is send the dictator off somewhere, issue ringing declarations about how much you love democracy and then try to preserve the same regime as much as possible. And that’s exactly what’s happening in the Arab Spring.”
“If we think democracy is a good thing, we should have totally different policies,” Chomsky continued. “That’s the government we’re talking about. Not us. There’s a huge gap between public opinion and public policy.”
In response to a question about the US politics drifting to the far right, Chomsky again cited public opinion studies, “If you follow public opinion studies, you find the drift is not very detectable. Our population is strongly in favor of taxing the rich. The public option, which would’ve opened the opportunity for the US to have a sane health care program like other industrialized countries (which incidentally would’ve eliminated the deficit); most were in favor of it.”
He did admit that there has been a shift on social issues which business doesn’t care much about. “Propaganda and other devices stimulate them,” he said. “You have to be careful when talking about policies and a drift to the right. Reality is considerably nuanced.”
Recently, Democratic Perspective had the great privilege of discussing the immigration debate with Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritas at Massachussetts Institute of Technology’s Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy. He has authored more than 150 books and, according to Wikipedia, is the 8th most quoted author of all time.
Prof. Chomsky began by saying, “In the background, there’s a conflict of values, each of which is worth respect. One is people should be free to go wherever they want. If anyone believed in free trade, and virtually nobody does, they would pay attention to the patron saint, Adam Smith (social philosopher and author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) who stated that a founding principle of free trade is the free circulation of labor.”
“The other value,” Chomsky continued, “Is that a community has a right to preserve integrity that is of importance to it.”
“Well, there are circumstances where these values conflict, and at that point, we have to look at circumstances as we always do on human affairs,” said Chomsky. “The US has a mixed history on immigration. In the 19th Century, it was essentially free and immigration from Europe was encouraged although Ben Franklin thought some groups were too ‘swarthy’ to be admitted into the US. He was talking about Germans and Swedes. Franklin felt only pure Anglo-Saxons should be admitted.” But, according to Prof. Chomsky, by the late 19th Century, attitudes toward immigration were beginning to shift. “The most extreme example was the Asian Exclusion Act (except for the Japanese who regarded as different),” he continued.
In speaking specifically about the current problem with the US-Mexican border, Chomsky said, “Like most borders it was established by violence – the US conquered half of Mexico in a war of aggression 160 years ago. So what is now Arizona and the Southwest in general was part of Mexico. It remained quite an open border. That changed substantially in 1994 when Clinton launched an operation to militarize the border for the first time. The same year, the Clinton administration rammed through NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which was opposed by people in all three of the countries involved.”
Chomsky said that it was understood by its framers that NAFTA would lead to immigration from Mexico as the result of structural changes.
For example, Chomsky said, “Mexican agriculture is quite efficient, but it can’t compete with US agribusiness, which is highly subsidized. As a result, Mexican workers were driven off the farm. Furthermore, Mexican businesses are not going to compete with US multinationals which, under NAFTA, are given rights that go far beyond the rights of persons. Also, in 1980, the US was supporting massive terrorist wars in Central America that led to genocide in the Mayan highlands of Nicaragua. Remnants of those shattered societies are still flowing to the US to try to survive somehow.”
Chomsky continued, “There are lots of reasons for immigration and there are mixed attitudes towards it. Business tends to want the cheap labor. They can be hired for very little money and they can’t protest. They can’t say anything or they’ll be kicked out of the country. In some parts of the country like South Florida, they literally become slaves.”
In speaking of those most vocally opposed to immigration, Chomsky says, “I wouldn’t call them conservative because a conservative would agree with Adam Smith. Immigration does arouse all sorts of concerns. Some are understandable, but incorrect. Many feel it undercuts the domestic workforce. That’s not really true. Studies show that it actually increases economic growth and leads to more work.”
Chomsky complted the interview by offering a solution to the issue, “The answer to immigration should be to improve working conditions in Mexico. That was done by the European Union and it worked perfectly. Before the EU admitted poorer, southern countries, it spent some time trying to raise their standard of living. So when they did enter the EU and their people could move freely, they wouldn’t undercut the more affluent northern workers. Some of the proposals of NAFTA included measures like this, but they weren’t even discussed. There are ways to deal with these problems humanely.”
