2.2.3. An individual and culture
“About the current moment” №11(83), November 2008. Bureaucratic despair in Russia and global project “Obama” · перевод (English) · раздел 8 из 13
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
2.2.3. An individual and culture
The question of ‘right value systems’, which is essentially the question of ideals and ethics, that should be the key values of the society and in children’s upbringing are also taboo for Russian ‘elite’. Therefore in Russia there is not and cannot be public discussion on right values and culture that should normally form the foundation of child’s personality and which he should carry on in his life and express in his ethics, independently from his family, ancestors and chosen sphere of work.
When Russian ‘elite’ representatives, including politicians, talk about supporting cultural development, their speeches are restricted to:
· Issues of funding: realistic and possible
· However, support of development of culture itself, meaning “right value system’ in which kids should be brought up, is avoided, or expressed with meaningless phrases unrelated to reality - when this is a question of outmost importance for society.
In this topic, Barack Obama is more independent that any Russian ‘elite’ activist, ‘patriot’ and ‘mecenats’:
“ Dr. King once said: “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also”
Sometimes we need both cultural transformation and government action - a change in values and a change in policy - to promote the king of society we want. The state of our inner-city schools is a case in point. All the money in the world won’t boost student achievement if parents make no effort to instill I their children the values of hard work and delayed gratification. But when we as a society pretend that poor children will fulfill their potential in dilapidated, unsafe schools with outdated equipment and teachers who aren’t trained in the subjects they teach, we are perpetrating a lie on these children, and on ourselves. We are betraying our values.
That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose - this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through our government. Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that own government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better - or for the worse.” (p. 63)
And on the first pages he talks about culture:
“I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.” (p. 11)
And further he points out that key to solving all social problems is in proper upbringing of its children. (“instill values of hard work and delayed gratification…”). If kids are brought up with right values they can do better job for the good of the society they live in. But only those parents that have right value system can instill it in their children. And if for some reason parents do not have such values - then it is a work of government to teach kids a love for work and patience through day-care, school and arts.
Can anyone recall Putin or any other Russian ‘elite’ politician raising the issue of “hard work and motivation for creative activities as critical factors of stability of social system and development of its culture and economy”? That’s right - it has never happened. And even so-called “fighter for the good of people”,Gennady Zuganov (now First secretary of Communist party of RF) avoids this topic.
And main reason for avoiding this subject is that talking about it will inevitably lead to discussion on what is fair and what is unfair in social life. And as we know, this is not their favorite topic. Because historical facts of life of civilization, whose economic prosperity is based on collective work, and not just some abstract hard-working and motivation, but very concrete motivation to work for the system of inner-social relationship of people. Therefore,
· If the workers find the system fair and satisfactory of their needs, then work motivation exist and their diligence is rewarded by the result of their work.
· If workers find the system unfair because all their lives it cannot satisfy their primary needs, then work motivation disappears and the less diligence, supporting the system, there is, the quicker it moves to full collapse. However, here some part of residual ambitions can be directed on destruction of current system and its substitution with another one, or on efforts in cleansing this system from its flaws.
In accordance wit this B. Obama many times turns to the subject of work ethics and personal initiative (entrepreneurship in its wider sense) which in the context of his books is strongly tied to the subject of fairness.
“I believe in the free market, competition and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers.” (p.10)
As long as individual men and women are free to pursue their won interests, society as a whole will prosper, Out system of self-government and our free-market economy depend on the majority of individual Americans adhering to these values. The legitimacy of our government and our economy depend on the degree to which these values are rewarded, which is why the values of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination compliment rather than impinge on our liberty”. (p/54)
Obama reproaches the situation when in the USA for many people “politics became business rather than mission”, and further down the text, talking about the role of money in his campaigns, he reminisces on some of his sponsors: “As a rule they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1% or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cures by a nigh SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were suspended by the movements of global capital.” (p. 114).
And further down he characterizes social consequences of such human behavior.
“…the Ownership Society doesn't even try to spread the risks and rewards of the new economy among all Americans. Instead, it simply magnifies the uneven risks and rewards of today's winner-take-all economy. If you are healthy or wealthy or just plain lucky, then you will become more so. If you are poor or sick or catch a bad break, you will have nobody to look to for help. That's not a recipe for sustained economic growth or the maintenance of the strong American middle class. It's certainly not a recipe for social cohesion. It runs counter to those values that say we have a stake in each other's success.
That is certainly not who we are as people”
However, let’s come back to the subject of how money influence politics. Further on, Obama describes his relationship with unions and their leaders, that also financially supported his campaigns through the course of his political career. Here is his conclusion:
«So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way. I don’t mind dealing obligated toward home health-care workers who clean bedpans every day for little more than the minimum wage, or toward teachers in some of the toughest schools in the country, many of whom have to dip into their own pockets at the beginning of every school year to buy crayons and books for their students. I got into politics to fight for these folks and I’m glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles.
But I also understand that there will be times when these obligations collide with other obligations - the obligation to children not yet born whom we are saddling with debt.” (p.118).
So this is to say that problems of upbringing, teaching kids diligence and maintaining fairness are connected from the point of view of Barack Obama and his voters. And although these issues are broadly discussed in public, very little is done in real politics in order to enforce those values, which only brings problems both for Americans and the USA as a state. Obama writes that upon his initiative was passed a bill protecting Americans from loosing their jobs to immigrants, willing to work for smaller wages. And then he cites a part of conversation he had with one of his colleagues:
“ - My small business guys are still going to hire immigrants,” he said.:All your amendment does is make them pay more for their help.”
“But why would they hire immigrants over U.S. workers if they cost the same?” I asked him.
He smiled. “’Cause let’s face it, Barack. These Mexicans are just willing to work harder than Americans do.” (p. 266)
For Russian “elite” however, the question is different: “How can we make or trick people to work for our own prosperity in conditions when we deliberately impose injustice?” This problem has no solution and all attempts to solve it, as history shows, have only led to political suicide of some “elite” representative and of “elite” as a social class.