With the US and world economy in an increasingly sharper nose dive and the sobering statistic that 70% of our economy is generated by consumer spending, Bruce Springsteen’s stirring blue collar anthem may need revision. While we are reminded continually by experts and pundits that the US is still the unprecedented incubator for ideas, an engine of innovation and a fountainhead from which novel business processes and applications still spring, the current state of affairs suggest that for all of our ingenuity we have become primarily a nation of undisciplined consumers which finds itself teetering precariously on the apex of the vast pyramid of spending that it has constructed. The gritty lyrics of Springsteen’s Born In The USA aptly capture the plight of the Vietnam vet and the ironic tension that always surfaces between service and those who have been served. With a slight alteration in the song’s title we can shift the metaphor a couple of generations to represent a central element contributing to the economic tailspin: Bought In The USA.
The US turned away from the business of manufacturing some time ago in the pursuit of cheap goods and consumption in exchange for fundamental business principles which had made our nation strong and provided a slower path to a more equitable future–a future which could only be realized if there were a fundamental restructuring of the way wealth was distributed; our return to a more stable economy is conditional upon such a revision today. We, the consumers, were still being born in the USA even as we became morbidly obese by cannibalizing our spirit of self-reliance and impoverishing ourselves on the riches we squandered to create a culture of unending consumption. We exchanged our birthright gleefully for the slickest, and in many cases, not so slick advertising jingles; our passport may have listed us as citizens of the USA but we were indentured to the things we bought in the USA. How much is enough is one of those metaphysical conundrums that we have refused to attempt to solve. Our dilemma, for any group or any individual, has been determining how much should we keep for ourselves and how much should we give to others. Introduce this topic in any group setting and one may reasonably expect a mathematical progression of rationalizations, all to someone’s mind, plausible, and, with the majority of those ratiocination’s, staunchly in defense of upholding the status quo.
As our economy has floundered, we have become both angry and reflective; however, we have not yet been willing to acknowledge our own culpability in contributing to this crisis and the extent to which we played into the hands of many captains of industry far more greedy than we ever dared to imagine. But we came close, if not in tangible wealth, certainly in the lust for it as evidenced by our collective appetite for reality entertainment which afforded the opportunity for both riches and notoriety–the illegitimate offspring of fame–so that the allure to sate ourselves enticed us with a ubiquitous doppelganger, the summum bonum of our culture. Our actions reflected the conduct of desperate men long before the consequences of our behavior became evident or irreversible. We wanted what we wanted when we wanted it, which was readily translatable into any of the many commercial jingles aired on all manner of media proclaiming our inalienable right to obtain anything that we wanted without restriction. Hip advertisers chanted a mantra that opportunity is limitless and obstacles are illusory. There is one especially telling commercial in which the product ordered online is delivered fully produced by downloading it from the internet. Not unsurprisingly, only the method by which we can complete our transaction is discussed but not how we will be able to pay for our purchase. Deferred payment trumped deferred pleasure.
Even as the average citizen of this country or any other country in the world struggles with the economic realities with which he or she is confronted, there is at least a certainty that in the near term there will be life altering decisions which will prove to be transformative in the long term; the extent to which these changes will add value is unclear at this time. “Yes We Can” seems a little less reassuring when the speaker stands with his hands behind his back, fingers crossed, and, as the words leave his lips thinks silently to himself, “I Hope We Can. And, with the exception of a few inveterate or recalcitrant self-absorbed ideologues, we hope he can, too. The counsel for caution is deceptive; desperate times may require desperate measures. The so-called socialization of America was initiated by a conservative Republican who also shares the honor as being, at present, arguably the worst President in this country’s history; and, who presided over a divisive, duplicitous administration which nearly ruined the foundation of our republic and the democratic principles for which it has been held in high regard throughout the world. His administration promulgated the concept of war-without-end and un-apologetically plunged the nation into an unnecessary, ill-advised war that remains unresolved and financially unsustainable.
As the ship of state attempts to set its course, it’s churning wake indicates the turbulence through which it must navigate, not the least of which is the uncharted waters of re-shaping America. Detractors and zealots are quick to shout out instructions to the captain–fore, aft, port, starboard–figuratively controlling the helm, but they do so from a safe distance, unwilling to lay their hand with his to steady the wheel. Walt Kelly’s observant marsupial, Pogo the possum, observed in one old comic strip: We have met the enemy and he is us. It is either an optimist or a fool who imagines that self-defeat is a strategy for victory, but that is what stands before us. An outcome is inevitable; that it will be favorable, is not, but the landscape we will behold shall bear the signs of our struggle. I cast my vote for the optimist last November; he still has it.
