Brookfield Basics

"Are you an absolutist"?

A young man recently asked me this question after we had a discussion about the histories of America and Russia in the twentieth century. He did not ask it in a challenging way. Rather, he was intrigued, quizzical. He asked it in the same tone he might have used had he asked, “Do you believe in ghosts”?

From the time of America’s founding to approximately the mid-twentieth century, the highest virtue in our society was considered to be, well – virtue. That is no longer the case. Today our society values the priceless commodity of tolerance above all others. It has become noblest end. This can be clearly seen in many of our institutions, most notably our university educational system. There is no greater achievement than to impart to our kids a sense of becoming “open”, with an undiscerning and uncritical worldview the twin companion of the diploma. For who are we to say in 21st Century America that any one idea is better than another, or one system of governance, or one tradition?

The twin sibling of this issue of tolerance is that of our “feelings”. This movement of “feeling-ness” can be seen in the evolution of the Oprah Winfrey show and the staggering stature she has achieved in society. This is not a criticism of Oprah and I don’t suggest that she is the cause of this. I raise her show because it is illustrative of the point I am trying to make.

The thing she is most interested in finding out is “how does that make you feel”? She doesn’t ask her guests “what do you THINK about this” or “what do you BELIEVE about that”? Thinking and believing require that choices be made and preferences be described. Rather, she is only concerned about how they “feel”. And from such an incubator we get Tom Cruise jumping up and down on her couch, pumping his arms in the primal exultation of what he is feeling, and of – of being Tom Cruise I suppose.

Tolerance is god in America today. It is the greatest virtue we can cultivate; it is the greatest good we can bestow.

But this leaves me with a question. If we are to be tolerant of all things, all behaviors, all ideas, then what exactly is it that we can be FOR? To be passionately FOR anything requires that we define WHY we are for it. But any thoughtful and articulately stated reasons why we are for something raises the great risk of being branded as “intolerant”, for you cannot be seriously for anything without, by definition, being AGAINST certain other things.

Does the worship of tolerance demand that we forsake demonstrated and healthy traditions? Does the blind pursuit of tolerance forbid us to suggest that some ideas and some practices might actually be BETTER than others?

We have medicated ourselves with the drugs of tolerance and political correctness to the point where there is only one thing that it is NOT to be tolerated.

And that one thing of course is - intolerance.

There are some things in life you can just count on. One of them is an endless stream of molten political rhetoric every time Exxon and its corporate siblings do what they exist to do - earn high profits.

No sooner does Wall Street announce the latest earnings than, like lemmings to the sea, the Speaker of the House and her entourage can be seen gamboling out on to the steps of the Capitol, breathless in their self-righteous compulsion to find a microphone and pour out their condemnation upon the evil, pillaging robber-barons of the oil business.

Now let’s first recognize some facts before I address the political issues, which are admittedly more subjective.

When oil companies make a lot of money three things happen:

First, their shareholders are enriched through the appreciation of their investment and the receipt of greater dividends. That means every senior citizen, single-mom or dad, middle-aged parent, enterprising college student; EVERYONE who owns stock in those companies sees an increase to their personal wealth. Let’s stop just long enough to say, “that’s a good thing”.

Secondly – the government is enriched through its three-tiered taxation of this bounty. First, the corporation pays taxes on its profits; secondly shareholders pay taxes on the dividends their stock pays to them, and thirdly; those same shareholders pay taxes on their capital gains when they sell their stock. The US Government taxes the same dollar THREE TIMES – a racket even Tony Saprano has yet to figure out. So every time Exxon makes more money, the revenues of the Federal Government increase. And I am sure Ms. Pelosi would say “that is a good thing”.

Lastly, Exxon is now better positioned to take risks and invest more capital into finding additional sources of oil. And isn’t that a good thing too?

A greedy, evil, pilfering, environment-raping, poor-exploiting energy company making money, and it’s a good thing??!! One imagines that if she ever grasped this simple reality, the exothermic force of her cognitive dissonance would launch her from the banks of the Potomac all the way back to her beloved California.

Oil is a commodity, the price of which is affected by supply and demand, and of course, the geo-political situation. No posturing politician from either political party can change that reality; not now – not ever. The emergence of China as a major industrial power has forever changed the dynamic of oil prices. As the wealth of her people increases, their ability to purchase cars, machines, and all manner of oil consuming products and services, will increase. The DEMAND curve for oil has dramatically changed. And greater demand means higher prices.

Now in fairness to Pelosi she is only the latest in a long line to do this, and certainly members of BOTH parties have shamelessly gone to this well. The Republicans are no better than the Democrats on this score, and I don’t remember any of them crying for the oil industry when it dealt with years of $20 a barrel oil prices and was barely staying afloat.

I don’t like paying more for gasoline than you do, and I never will. But let’s not make it worse by listening to a lot of disingenuous claptrap from people who know a lot about sound bites for the evening news, but nothing about economics or markets.

The next time you see some politician from either party dispensing drivel about “obscene profits”, take a minute to recognize that it has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with politics.

And then ask yourself a question: “When is the last time you heard anyone describing their own profits as “obscene”, like say perhaps, a Hollywood movie star or Oprah Winfrey?

Whenever you hear someone use the term “obscene profits”, it means they are referring to someone else’s.

The title of this column is not my own; I borrowed it from the title of a 1987 book written by Professor Allan Bloom. The subtitle to that book is “how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today’s students”.

As one can surmise Dr. Bloom has many convicting things to say about our University system; in particular, its respective administration and faculty. His thesis claims that this group has failed and ultimately betrayed their charter and their students. On balance I agree with the good Doctor, but that is the subject of a future column.

Unlike the book, this column is about the subject of multiculturalism, and I chose to borrow its title because I think it is descriptive of something that is happening on a cultural level as well.

Today a great wave of multiculturalism is sweeping over us. It is a tsunami which drowns out all opposition, or even the murmur of any voices that have the temerity to question where all of this might be taking us. Belief in its worth, belief in its inherent value and efficacy, have become a creed. Having lost sight of the real objective, which is to treat all INDIVIDUALS with dignity and respect, we now redouble our efforts to pursue this elusive grail of “multiculturalism”, as if the pursuit is its own, self-evident reward.

I have had the good fortune to travel many parts of the world. This, along with my love of history, has developed a reasonable familiarity with the major religions, cultures, and histories of this planet. I value them all, and it goes without saying that they are all part of the mosaic of human history.

But this wave of wave of multiculturalism concerns me on two fronts.

First, in our haste to treat “cultures” with respect, we are overlooking the principle this is predicated on, namely, that we must treat PEOPLE with respect. This, it would seem to me, is the more desirable objective; the proper relation to and treatment of people as individuals. I don’t know how to treat a “culture”, nor do I ever encounter “cultures” in my daily activities. I do encounter people of different ethnicities, and when I do, it never occurs to me to treat their “culture” with respect. What does occur to me is to treat THEM with respect. Isn’t that the idea? Wouldn’t we like to see more emphasis on what Martin Luther King Jr. proscribed, by letting “the content of their character” be our primary consideration, not “the color of their skin”.

Secondly, I fear that in our sweeping efforts to force-feed ourselves and our children a diet of multiculturalism, we have arrived at a place where we devalue and forget the meaning of AMERICAN culture. Make no mistake about it, at some levels, and in particular on our University Campuses, this “devaluation” is very much a CONSCIOUS objective. America - her history and her role in the world, is viewed with utter contempt by many people of authority in these institutions. To many of them, there is no evil so great that it cannot be attributed to our nation. Conversely, there is no good so obvious as to allow for any credit to be given.

Ronald Reagan spoke frequently and passionately about the role of America, both in history and in the present. His comments were evocative of Churchill, who in the 1930’s tried to steel England to her task as he outlined his nation’s role in standing up to fascism and to Hitler.

America is a melting pot. This is a fact of history so obvious and whose benefits are so numerous, as to be un-debatable. But the great waves of immigration that occurred in the 19th and early 20th centuries were markedly different from those we see today. In those eras, the people who came to this country may have come for some the same reasons, but having once arrived, they had definably different objectives. Their objective was, quite simply, to become Americans. This did not mean they rejected their own heritage. But it did mean certain things, like learning the English language and assimilating themselves into the fabric of American life. It meant enjoying the benefits of citizenry, while also submitting to its demands.

I have no problem with weaving the rich tapestry of other cultures into our overall societal fabric. On the contrary, it is to be welcomed. But let’s not be in such a hurry to do so that the recognition and valuing of other cultures demands the eradication of our own.

Let’s not forget that the American experience is unique in world history.

And let’s not be afraid to say that the American experience has been an overwhelmingly positive one.

Some of my favorite songs are recordings artists do of another artist’s song. Such efforts are known “covers”, and many are abject failures, little more than insults to the original artist. But there are some tremendous successes as well, and some of my favorite recordings are covers, where one artist takes the work of another, and adds a completely new dimension and texture to an already great song.

The other night I listened to one of those successes; a recording that Johnny and June Carter Cash did of Bob Dylan’s 1960’s hit “It Ain’t Me Babe”. The Cash/Carter recording is infinitely more rich and varied than Dylan’s. The components are some mariachi horns, an exquisitely evocative harmonica, a folk guitar, and the playful duet of their voices. Johnny’s throaty bass singing melody, with June Carter’s winsome tones providing beautiful harmonies.

As I listened to the song for the second time I got to thinking about the couple and their incredible story, recently depicted in the fabulous film Walk the Line. And as I listened a second time another couple came to mind: Brett and Deanna Favre.

I was struck by the similarities between Cash and Favre. Both grew up in the rural south and bear the imprint of the southern soil and experience upon their lives. Johnny Cash made his fame and fortune in the country music industry; Brett Favre’s nickname is “Country”. Both men climbed to the pinnacle of success in their respective industries, accumulating vast wealth and fame through their exploits. Both battled and ultimately defeated addictions that were the direct result of the exorbitant demands of their careers. Both men wore their hearts on their sleeves on the most public of stages, refusing to fabricate or pretend. Cash’s strong and uncomplicated emotions came out in his songs; Favre’s come out in his play. In both we can see joy, tears, pain, exultation, triumph, and defeat. But never, from either one, have we ever seen fear.

There are many people who achieve fame and wealth but few who achieve the status of legend. We forget what a mega-star Cash was, as big as Sinatra or Elvis or Jagger. We forget how marvelously productive he was well into his 70’s, leaving his final imprint on the American music scene with his incomparable “America Five” series. His funeral was a virtual State event, with the heaviest of heavy weights like Clapton, Dylan, Jagger, Richards, Young, Bono, and dozens of other titans in attendance. They came to pay silent homage to the man who, along with Elvis, paved the way for them.

Favre is not only universally loved, but also universally respected by his fans, his league, and most tellingly, by his peers. The end of each Packer game now sees the same familiar scene, as players and coaches from the opposing team congregate around the great one, seeking only to pay their respects, shake his hand, or just give his shoulder pads a rap or two. Who amongst us can forget his raw but utterly genuine outpouring at the end of the New Year’s Eve game against the Bears, as we sat in slack-jawed wonder and asked ourselves “is this it”? Just as Cash’s live performance at Folsom Prison had done, that sideline interview captured Brett in microcosm. There was no affectation or scripted message. There was only “Country”, standing there in the thirsty gaze of the camera, putting his true, uncomplicated heart out there for us to see.

But perhaps more than all these similarities, these two shared the love of and marriage to remarkable women. Unlike Deanna Favre, June Carter was famous in her own right. But while his public star may have eclipsed hers, it shone no more brightly. And who can doubt the courage and character of Deanna Favre as we have watched her stand in the gap with Brett; the gaps of addiction, injury, raising and protecting their daughters from the demands of their father’s super-stardom, and finally of course; the great battle of her cancer.

It must take a special woman to love and stand with a man who is adored and lauded; and whose very persona is claimed by millions to be public property. We know them as legends; they knew and know them as husbands and partners. One tries to imagine the crucible they live in, and the efforts they make to somehow carve out the semblance of a normal life, life as we “mortals” know it. Can there be any doubt that it was the steel beneath the magnolia blossoms of these two gritty southern women that helped see their husbands through to the other side of addiction, personal tragedy, and the false gods of wealth and fame?

I don’t think I will ever listen to a Johnny Cash song again without thinking of all four of these people. And maybe next fall as I watch Brett play, I will think of the “Man in Black” as Cash was known, and of the similarities these two warriors share.

They have provided so much joy and memories to all of us. But most of all, they share that common brand of gr

What could a contemporary rock band, a first century Roman Statesman, and a mythical superhero all have in common?

The answer lies in a word that is seldom used and even more seldom achieved - SOLITUDE.

First I’ll address REM. In their smash hit It’s the End of the World as We Know It, there is a haunting background refrain sung simultaneously to the chorus, and the words that echo in that refrain are “can I have some time alone”?

Marcus Cicero was a Roman pro-Consul and statesman of epic proportions. His writing, philosophy and dazzling orations before the Roman Senate have influenced Western Civilization for twenty centuries, and were foundational to the work done by America’s Founding Fathers. Today the revisionist history taught on most University campuses knows little of Cicero and his titanic achievements, but that is the subject of another column! Although his life was spent largely in the public arena, Cicero once proclaimed, “I am least alone when all alone”.

Superman was a comic book figure from the 1950’s, and he was brought to life on the big screen in the 1978 Richard Donner film, which featured Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, and Gene Hackman. In the movie, Superman’s father Jor-El bequeathed to his son what he called his “fortress of solitude”, a cathedral of crystal and ice to which the superhero could retreat to resolve inner conflicts and crisis. It was there that Superman journeyed to recoup and reflect, and to regain his lost powers, only after this emerging to do battle against the evil Lex Luthor.

The notion that solitude is valuable is something on which I think there would be widespread agreement. I suspect we would just as readily agree to the fact that we have precious little of it in our lives. In fact, I find it no exaggeration to say that if solitude were an animal, it would be on the endangered species list.

What is it about solitude that is so valuable? Much of its value is determined by its sheer scarcity, yet another confirmation of the law of supply and demand. It is also valuable because in my view, it is the indispensable tool to bringing about the pattern of behaviors and disciplines we want our lives to have. I know I can’t achieve any measurable progress in the areas I need to work on if I just let the rush of daily activities and responsibilities dominate my schedule. I suspect few of us can.

If we agree that it is of value then the next obvious question becomes “how do I get more of it”? The only way I know how to do it is to make it enough of a priority in my week to carve some time out for it. Such “carving” means different things and takes different shapes for all of us. I am an early riser, and for me it has lately meant resisting the pull of my morning ESPN addiction to spend some time reading from the book of Proverbs. Whatever your view of the Bible or Christianity, the simple and foundational wisdom contained in this book is hard to dispute; and I find it to be both a nice start to and anchor for my day.

I think we can all take a lesson from REM, Cicero, and Superman. They all recognized the importance of solitude,

And who amongst us at times does not want to be a rock star, a statesman, or a little more like Superman?

It was just over two years ago that President Bush continued his journey into the political wilderness by putting our Social Security program on the table, saying, in essence that "it is time to do something about it".

There was not one politician from any party or persuasion that dared respond to, much less support this move; and the matter once again disappeared below the sea level of our political debate. Just last Wednesday, however, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and David Walker, National Controller General, again raised the alarm.

Bernanke addressed the "aging of America's population" and the implications this has for our entitlement programs. "Unless something is done", Bernanke warned, there will be significant "economic dislocations and negative repercussions". Mr. Walker was more pointed, referring to the staggering entitlements contained under the prescription drug program (part of Medicare), as "the most irresponsible legislation of the last forty years".

The Chairman and Controller General are only voicing what we all intuitively know to be true. Namely, that there is an enormous day of reckoning coming with respect to entitlement programs. As our population ages, the number of people receiving FROM these programs will become inexorably and insupportably greater than the number of people putting INTO them. This is a simple equation not only for financial mayhem, but also for tremendous social strife on a generational level, as we see our children's lives turned into little more than revenue machines for the funding of retirees. The implications of this scenario will affect virtually every aspect of our lives; and they will do so in a horrifically negative way.

Whatever your view of government spending, where it is too great and where it is too little; there is no disputing the simple reality that entitlement programs are the overwhelmingly dominant cause of our fiscal ills. The Department of Defense could reduce spending by fifty percent, or indeed, be eliminated, and it would not substantively change this twisted entitlement metric. It is these programs that form the iceberg our ship of State is steaming towards.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest and most obvious examples. In addition, there is the matter of entitlements contained under retirement programs for government employees. As the level of America's workforce employed by government approaches fifty percent, tremendous additional pressure is added to an already overwrought and bankrupt system.

Addressing these chasms of debt is going to be painful, but NOT addressing them is suicidal. It must begin with forcing this matter out into the arena of political debate. There are some solutions to this quagmire, and I will be writing about them in the coming months. But one thing I will say is this:

The solution is NOT Federal healthcare, or Federal pension insurance or any Federal "we'll take care of you" promissory note.

Why would we expect solutions from the same system that brought us these disasters?