You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Sat, Aug 27, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.

Our endangered legacy as a nation

By Robert Faber

Editor's note: Robert Faber writes occasional columns for AnnArbor.com about aging, politics and other issues.

One of the notable features of aging is our tendency to examine the past with eyes firmly (if falsely) focused on “the good ol’ days” -- those questionably pleasurable and productive times of our youth. At times, however, those reflections drift away from reality and into fading daydreams built on some unlikely memories from our youth or some imagined glories of our origins.

All four of my grandparents, like the parents and grandparents of almost all the kids I knew, immigrated to this country from the impoverished villages of eastern Europe. They came without money, without the language, without connections -- with nothing but hope. They struggled and they survived, but mainly -- the biggest triumph of all -- they were now Americans.

As a new nation still struggling to its feet in 1787, our constitution outlined its founders’ hopes and purpose in a Preamble that pledged to “establish Justice [and] promote the general Welfare,” a noble commitment for a people facing continuing hostilities from both the Old World and the New -- and the distress of an economy not yet working -- and the uncertainty of traditions not yet established. Over the next two-plus centuries the hostility diminished, the economy blossomed and the traditions grew and glowed to the admiration and envy of the whole world.

Unfortunately, this glorious land of milk and money is slowly losing its way, forfeiting the nobility of its broad humanitarian concerns in exchange for cutting costs and reducing taxes. The “better life” is an admirable goal, but we have become so focused on economic efficiency and the mechanics of governance that the principles shaped by our Founders and articulated in our Constitution now seem increasingly inconsequential. A balanced budget is a reasonable component of good government, but it should be part of the mechanics of governance - not its purpose.

The Reagan slogan that “government is not the solution - government is the problem” still resonates with much of our population, but it fails to address concrete problems affecting the lives of many of the more disadvantaged of our people, or to adhere to the principles of our Constitution, and it bypasses many of the traditions we cherish.

The almost comic insistence of President Calvin Coolidge that “the business of government is business” is rapidly becoming established fact. Our expanding profit-and-loss motivation is changing the way our country functions, substituting corporate efficiency for human sensitivity. Lost, or at least seriously diminished, is the concept of pride as a motive for serving our nation and our neighbors, thereby helping to remake our country from a nation of “We the People ...” into a Board of Directors overseeing its investments.

It is natural and proper for us to focus on our own well-being -- both immediate and long-term -- but there must still be room within ourselves and our society for those in serious need. While many of our more needy neighbors remain poor and jobless and without adequate benefits of medical or educational or nutritional care, the growing wisdom is that first we must improve our economy to afford such charity, that we must first “get our own house in order.” Unfortunately, that means that those who need help will simply have to wait their turn. The problem with that approach is that for those citizens dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival -- medical, shelter, food -- there may not be the time left to wait for an economic upturn.

As a senior looking back on the more glorious pieces of our past, I like to believe that the nobility of those people is reflected in who we are today -- that the people at the core of our nation remain the same generous and concerned citizens they were at the beginning. Habitat For Humanity, for example, providing shelter for billions of desperate people worldwide, is constructed and financed by our neighbors; and The Peace Corps is over-subscribed with idealistic young volunteers; and Bill Gates pushed himself out of competition for world’s richest individual by giving away $53 billion of his own money to assorted charities.

I realize that, along with most seniors, I tend to romanticize the past -- both mine and my country's -- but while those memories may be flawed, they are an essential and enriching part of our history. Idealizing our past may not be a commendable fabrication, but it does help define some of the true glory of our legacy. We the People do still care, but our system is becoming less reflective of our character.

Meanwhile, we seniors, even as a fading minority with muted voices, might still have an impact. Our kids and grandchildren often confuse our longevity with wisdom, so they may accept our contention that it was the high principles and rich Constitutional values that had shaped our country. With luck that just may be enough to inspire their generation and the next to follow a similar path.

Bob Faber has been a resident of Ann Arbor since 1954. He and his wife, Eunice, owned a fabric store and later a travel agency. He served a couple of terms on the Ann Arbor City Council. He may be reached at rgfaber@comcast.net.

Comments

Corey Lord

Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

I was thinking about something that is very close to this article. We learn in corporate strategy classes about vision and mission, objectives, and all that stuff. The reason why those high-level areas are important is because in order to make a decision on anything that involves an organization of people you need to know how that decision affects the outcomes you are looking to achieve. However, the United States of America either doesn't have a vision or at least its been lost in politics. After thinking about this problem, I realized this is the root of all of our problems. For example, the conservatives "smaller government" agenda. Thinking about long-range goals, vision, and mission I came up with a burning question for the "smaller government" crowd: How small do you want to shrink the government? The same goes for the liberals: How big do you want the government? The same can be asked of our world military presence: What are we trying to achieve by increasing or decreasing our military presence in the world? We can't go any further down the path of governance without first identifying the outcomes we would like. Do we want to achieve a nation where we are self-governed or do we still want a little government? Do we want to create a world of total peace, practically a utopia? Or do we understand the limits of society and need a determinable level of governance? Asking the right questions will give the United States a positive identity again. I almost feel like we need a new constitutional convention in order to do this because the outcomes that the Constitution was seeking are not the outcomes we are looking for today. Or are they?

shepard145

Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

You sound like you found the track but are not on it yet. This is a huge topic that is greatly influenced by human frailty and no small amount of thirst for power at any cost. The choices you think we have are wrong though, as is your understanding of references to small and large government. I suggest you read and understand the Constitution, find a good source of impartial political information, if there is such a thing, and read Henry Kissinger s book, Diplomacy, if you want to start to understand global motivation. Also read Ann Colter's new book if you want to know about the battle to influence you and what's at stake.

outdoor6709

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.

Unfortunately our society has gone from welfare that helped bridge a person from hard times to back on their feet to a culture of reciepents that demand they are given everything. Free cell phones are the latest right of the poor paid for by the working folks. Citizens think that those who create jobs are evil corporations. When was the last time you knew anyone who was hired by a poor person? According to IRS the top 50 % of taxpayers pay 97.25% of the income taxes. Everyone should be required to pay taxes. Otherwise they have no stake in how government functions and will vote for the biggest promise. That is why we are $14 trillion in debt. About $47,000 per household.

shepard145

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 10:53 p.m.

Dave you haven't a clue who's done what. Our last qualified President, George W. Bush of the Bush dynasty, accumulated $4 trillion after 9/11 over EIGHT YEARS - rebuilding our national defense after liar Clinton (examine your records again) gutted our military, made huge progress fixing schools with no child left behind, helped seniors avoid personal bankruptcy with Part D medicare (big wasteful mistake - should have let the ungrateful windbags starve) and the first part of TARP saving the auto industry after Pelosi refused to help them as Levin stood by impotent. In next 2.5 years Pelosi, empty shirt community organizer obama and the "Democrat Disaster" spent another $4 trillion on NOTHING but paying off political cronies on wall street. So your hero spent in 2.5 years what it took Bush to spend in 8.....math is hard. I don't know how the booming Reagan economy figures into your rant since Clinton followed him but clearly you need a new source for your opinions. As much as Pelosi and you other power hungry class warfare crazies will never understand, economies do not grow from the bottom up. The rich you are all so confused by do not keep their money in their garage under a tarp waiting for the government to pick up, it's invested in the ECONOMY in businesses that EMPLOY PEOPLE. It's amazing you can't understand such a simple principle, which to many implies some sort of emotional damage. ....but you call investment in the worlds largest economy and only super power "trickle down economics" as though sending money to the central government is BETTER THEN INVESTING IN BUSINESS? LOL Go live in Greece - they agreed with you until the money was gone. We are all embarrassed for liberals and their inability to grasp the obvious.

David Briegel

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

Nicole, You might wish to address your question about the balanced checkbook to Ronnie and the Bush Crime Family. 80% of our debt is directly attributable to your conservative trickle down liars! But don't trouble yourself with any data. We are borrowing money from China to give multi-millionaires tax cuts. Doesn't that just feel so generous? macabre and nicole, We are just so very generous with our bombs, drones and Seal teams that the world will thank us forever as we have created the next generation of martyrs. They will all behave just like the Cowboy did when he BEHEADED Saddam to achieve the vengance for his Daddy. Such a noble American Cause! So much for Freedom and Democracy!!

Not from around here

Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 8 p.m.

Wow, annarbor.com moderaator. You allow some people to call names and scream liar and other can't even question them or their deleted. And Some people ARE allowed to personally attack other commentors and some aren't? I quess it depends what side of the fence your on. Or who you are.. So Much for free speech and Civility!

nicole

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 7:10 p.m.

One more comment. When did it become OK not to be able to balance your check book and pay your bills! You seem so against balancing the national budget. Why? It's the same thing as your personal finances only on a much larger scale. Where do you think the money is going to come from? That it'll just magically appear even if we keep spending ourselves into more and more debt as a nation? The first way out of debt is to acknowledge its there and then more forward with a plan to pay off your bills. Then and only then should any expenditures be made.

nicole

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.

What a bunch of liberal dribble! Come on. This is the most generous nation ever on the face of the earth. Private donations from US citizens to foreign countries and causes, outpaces donations from any other country in the world. And how about all those foreign adoptions? Do the Chinese adopt American babies? No, but we sure do adopt plenty of theirs and from many other countries as well. I could go on and on, but I won't. You get the picture. Please get your head out of the sand.

snoopdog

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.

"Unfortunately, this glorious land of milk and money is slowly losing its way, forfeiting the nobility of its broad humanitarian concerns in exchange for cutting costs and reducing taxes." Back in the day Bob, if you didn't farm, you didn't eat. No welfare, no social insecurity,no WIC programs, no food stamps, no unemployment/unemjoyment. So now we have all these socialist safety nets for those that are too lazy to get up off their fat butt's and work and you say we are losing our way ? I suggest that these programs are actually what is destoying our country. Too many of us do not not produce, too many of us do not pay taxes. Too many of us are happy to be parasites and suck the life blood out of those that do value hard work. I will also suggest that the parasites are darn close to killing their hosts ! If you are feeling guilty Bob about not paying enough in taxes, I suggest you get your checkbook out and send Uncle Sam some more money. This is perhaps the most ridiculous opinion piece I have read in the two plus years of A2.com's existance. Good Day

Top Cat

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.

My ancestors came to America from Ireland and Prussia after the Civil War. They came here for opportunity and freedom, not a handout, a Welfare State or to be told how to run their lives. Our children and our grandchildren deserve those same opportunities and freedoms.

Basic Bob

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

Do you think they will be desperate enough to emigrate to a third-world country where people speak a different language? Do you think they will be willing to face poverty and starvation in urban ghettos or rural isolation? That's what the USA was in the 19th century.

sbbuilder

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.

As recently as WWII, thousands of refugees from around the world, primarily from Europe, came here with little but the clothes on their backs. Even more recently we have refugees from Vietnam who came here in the Seventies in much the same condition. These are but two examples of Twentieth century groups of people who came here, much like just about all others from the 1700's forward, who came here because of the evident freedom and promise of opportunity. They most certainly did not come here because of the social programs and 'human sensitivity'. For the most part, they came here with zero expectation of a hand out, or government assistance. I don't know if the thought ever crossed their minds. All that has changed, capsulated in the phrase '... I'm gonna get me some Obama cash.' As long as this attitude is prevalent, and encouraged through extended government handouts, we are a nation in very big trouble. You can wring your hands all you want about corporate government, but if nobody is paying into the system, and everybody has their hand out, there won't be a government much longer. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-a-record-458-million-american-using-food-stamps-20110805,0,6178100.story" rel='nofollow'>http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-a-record-458-million-american-using-food-stamps-20110805,0,6178100.story</a>

jcj

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.

David I agree that there are those that are disadvantaged that give back everyday. But there is a growing populace that takes advantage of all of us everyday. That includes the likes of Warren Buffet and street walkers in Detroit or Ann Arbor for that matter. And includes myriads in between those extremes. The rich have always for the most part taken advantage where they can. Be it through loop holes or employees or whatever. But the number of people not considered rich that take advantage of those that work is growing because they have been given too much without so much as lifting a finger to &quot;give back&quot;.

David Briegel

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 11:30 a.m.

Macabre, actually, you could tax cut them up the wazoo and it won't make a difference in their lives. I'm sure you lament the debt yet you speak nothing of the fact that we borrow money from China to give billionaires like Warren Buffet a tax cut. Sanity? Your silence speaks volumes! And the disadvantaged give back everyday as the blind teach us how to really see and the deaf teach us how to truly hear. Are you listening? Can you see? Can't the billionaire give back to that which benefits him so greatly?

Not from around here

Mon, Aug 29, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.

Hey DB, I have an idea. Instead of Buffet, Zuckerberg, Gates, Ellison, Walton and Soro's saying that there taxes should be raised, why don't they just call up there accountants and tell them not to utalize the &quot;loopholes&quot;. After all, everyone of these Billionaires publically backed and finacial supported Obama, maybe rather than calling a press conference or spending a weekend on our dime at the white house with the POTUS, they could just call their accountants office? Maybe Lipservice is cheaper than Hope and Change

Mike K

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

Warren Buffet can contribute if likes. Personally, I find it immoral to suggest that someone else should pay more (or less for that matter). Who am I to judge?

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.

The billionaire still pays much more in taxes for the same services. And he's still a person - why assume he's less of a person because he makes more money? So he's ahead of the game already because he pays more taxes. Don't confuse your hatred of someone because has a lot of money for a lack of character. You also have a very simplistic notion of how taxes work. You're solely focused on billionaires - which represent just a tiny, tiny percentage of the populace. Sure, Warren Buffet can pay a lot more in taxes and wouldn't worry about it. But when you talk about raising tax rates, you're not talking about Warren Buffet. You're talking about a second tier that it would matter to - and it would matter in the form of how many jobs they would, in turn, be able to provide. You wax poetic about the blind teaching us to see. What does that even mean? In the context of this argument, does it mean that the morally bereft teach us how to be more moral? That screaming for higher taxes because they don't pay any themselves teaches the rest of us about screaming?

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.

Wouldn't it be nice if the self-proclaimed &quot;disadvantaged&quot; actually felt some sort of obligation to give back to society? Because that's how things were in your sentimental &quot;good ole&quot; days. Now, everyone feels entitled to gilded HD televisions and only half of the populace actually pays income tax. That doesn't stop the bleeding hearts from whining about a select few multi-millionaires. You could tax them up the wazoo and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of tax revenue.

DonBee

Sun, Aug 28, 2011 : 2:30 a.m.

Mr. Faber - I find the original definition of &quot;Welfare&quot; interesting: Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. I wonder if this is the definition you were thinking of, or maybe a newer definition of the term? The government has wrestled with the idea of this from the beginning. If you look at Franklin's original passage it reads: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare… You will not that the General Welfare applied not to people but to the states that were to form the union. I find it interesting that people take modern definitions of a old document and apply them. I think you will find much of this generation's history wrapped in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and the fall of the Berlin Wall. The question is will the current generation do better? Will they learn from our failures?