For those who have been following the op-ed columns and political magazines over the past few months—both left and right—some startling revelations have emerged that appear to be shaking the foundations of our self-righteousness.  We have begun to realize that the only people who think Americans are “exceptional” are Americans.  Nobody else does.  It is finally sinking in that we were not ordained by God to create the entire world in our image and we can’t tell every other nation on earth what to do and expect them to comply. We have been “spearheading” the Israeli-Palestinian “peace talks” since I had a 32-inch waist and we all know how successful they have been.   The confrontation with Putin is really somewhat ludicrous.  Our position seems to be that if we invade sovereign countries, overthrow their governments, arm rebels, create chaos and mayhem  in “our national interest,” that’s okay, but if Russia does it, we “condemn” such actions and sternly warn there will be “grave consequences” for doing acts we have already done. Then our rusting Republicans, lead by their doddery-old-man-in-chief John McCain, predictably insist the president is not doing enough.  Enough what?  First there’s not a whole lot more sanctions and stern warnings he can do and only McCain seems to want us to get into another war.  Secondly, European business interests heavily involved in Russian trade are not exactly supporting those economic “sanctions” whoever proposes them.  Now if trying to accept that we do not rule the world weren’t trauma enough, we have to face the destruction of some of our cherished national myths here at home.  On April 22, 2013, I posted on my blog: “If any of you still believe we live in a democracy, I have bad news for you. All of us were taught since grade school that in a democracy our elected government is supposed to uphold the will of the people.  This no longer applies to the United States.”  Admittedly, this did not have much of an impact since nobody listens to me.  But, just recently, a new study by Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concluded that America has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.  They write, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."  In other words, what the voting American citizen wants does not matter, what the wealthy and powerful elite want does.  Unless you are really stupid you already knew this but now we have a serious research paper to prove those of us who are not stupid were right all along.  Perhaps the cruelest cut of all is the realization that good old American unfettered, profits-over-everything capitalism is causing more worldwide harm than good.  French economist Thomas Piketty’s new book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” has just caused an uproar.  If you are a liberal, you think it will scare conservatives to death because it basically says the wealthy are getting wealthier not by doing any thing to earn money but because of the money-generating assets they hold.  So we are regressing into a society where great wealth comes from inheritance and not from actually doing or producing anything.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are going hysterical over Piketty’s idea of world taxation on the wealthy and perhaps having to admit that the American myth that great wealth is earned by anyone willing to work hard enough is phony. Of course, predictably the conservatives are calling Piketty a “Marxist” hoping there are enough Americans old enough to know what they mean by that.  But there are also some voices on the right that think capitalism is no longer doing its job. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the right wing American Enterprise Institute, wrote an op-last week stating: “But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers’ generation at the same point in their lives.”  In other words, the rich keep getting richer and free-enterprise capitalism is not doing much for anyone else.  Brooks also concludes, “The solution does not lie in the dubious “fair share” class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. It entails pruning back outmoded licensing laws that restrain low-income entrepreneurs. And it means creating real solutions — not just proposing market distortions — for people who cannot find jobs that pay enough to support their families.”  By the way, I repeat this is from a right-wing commentator. So listen up Americans, you are not exceptional, you do not live in a democracy and free market capitalism is screwing you.

 

Anyone following the political scene over the past year of so will have noticed rumblings that Capitalism, as we know it, is not working for the betterment of the country and, for that matter, the world.  The wealth disparity in American has been well documented.  Every day we are fed an endless stream of examples of how economically miserable so many Americans are.  Republicans—at least those trying to be somewhat realistic—are using phrases like “re-branding the party’s image,” “reaching out to minorities and women,” etc.  I am waiting for someone to resurrect the old Republican oxymoron, “compassionate conservatism.” As long as Capitalism functions only to make the rich richer and keep the poor economically stagnant or worse, the free enterprise system is no longer working in our so-called “democracy.”  Now before you conclude this is just left-wing griping, read this op-ed piece written by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the right wing American Enterprise Institute.

Capitalism and the Dalai Lama

By Arthur C. Brooks, a contributing opinion writer, is the president of the American Enterprise Institute.

APRIL 17, 2014

WHAT can Washington, D.C., learn from a Buddhist monk?

In early 2013, I traveled with two colleagues to Dharamsala, India, to meet with the Dalai Lama. His Holiness has lived there since being driven from his Tibetan homeland by the Chinese government in 1959. From his outpost in the Himalayan foothills, he anchored the Tibetan government until 2011 and continues to serve as a spiritual shepherd for hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

Very early one morning during the visit, I was invited to meditate with the monks. About an hour had passed when hunger pangs began, but I worked hard to ignore them. It seemed to me that such earthly concerns had no place in the superconscious atmosphere of the monastery.

Incorrect. Not a minute later, a basket of freshly baked bread made its way down the silent line, followed by a jar of peanut butter with a single knife. We ate breakfast in silence, and resumed our meditation. This, I soon learned, is the Dalai Lama in a nutshell: transcendence and pragmatism together. Higher consciousness and utter practicality rolled into one.

That same duality was on display in February when the Dalai Lama joined a two-day summit at my institution, the American Enterprise Institute. At first, his visit caused confusion. Some people couldn’t imagine why he would visit us; as Vanity Fair asked in a headline, “Why Was the Dalai Lama Hanging Out with the Right-Wing American Enterprise Institute?”

There was no dissonance, though, because the Dalai Lama’s teaching defies freighted ideological labels. During our discussions, he returned over and over to two practical yet transcendent points. First, his secret to human flourishing is the development of every individual. In his own words: “Where does a happy world start? From government? No. From United Nations? No. From individual.”

But his second message made it abundantly clear that he did not advocate an every-man-for-himself economy. He insisted that while free enterprise could be a blessing, it was not guaranteed to be so. Markets are instrumental, not intrinsic, for human flourishing. As with any tool, wielding capitalism for good requires deep moral awareness. Only activities motivated by a concern for others’ well-being, he declared, could be truly “constructive.”

Tibetan Buddhists actually count wealth among the four factors in a happy life, along with worldly satisfaction, spirituality and enlightenment. Money per se is not evil. For the Dalai Lama, the key question is whether “we utilize our favorable circumstances, such as our good health or wealth, in positive ways, in helping others.” There is much for Americans to absorb here. Advocates of free enterprise must remember that the system’s moral core is neither profits nor efficiency. It is creating opportunity for individuals who need it the most.

Historically, free enterprise has done this to astonishing effect. In a remarkable paper, Maxim Pinkovskiy of M.I.T. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University calculate that the fraction of the world’s population living on a dollar a day — after adjusting for inflation — plummeted by 80 percent between 1970 and 2006. This is history’s greatest antipoverty achievement.

But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers’ generation at the same point in their lives. That was before the financial crisis, the Great Recession, and years of federal policies that have done a great deal for the wealthy and well-connected but little to lift up the bottom half.

The solution does not lie in the dubious “fair share” class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. It entails pruning back outmoded licensing laws that restrain low-income entrepreneurs. And it means creating real solutions — not just proposing market distortions — for people who cannot find jobs that pay enough to support their families.

In other words, Washington needs to be more like the Dalai Lama. Without abandoning principles, we need practical policies based on moral empathy. Tackling these issues may offend entrenched interests, but this is immaterial. It must be done. And temporary political discomfort pales in comparison with the suffering that vulnerable people bear every day.

At one point in our summit, I deviated from the suffering of the poor and queried the Dalai Lama about discomfort in his own life. “Your Holiness,” I asked, “what gives you suffering?” I expected something quotably profound, perhaps about the loss of his homeland. Instead, he thought for a moment, loosened his maroon robe slightly, and once again married the practical with the rhapsodic. “Right now,” he said, “I am a little hot