"If I ruled the world..." - Nader and his New Plan

[RoeiEisenberg]

Hi all,

I am currently visiting home in Los Angeles, and I ran across a recently published book that seemed worthy of mention under this category. I went with a friend to the local mega-bookstore, Borders, to load up on English-language books for my time in Israel. Coincidentally, my friend had booked a one-way plane ticket to Israel, so we were both eager to explore our literary options. While looking through a section simply marked "Authors", I found a misplaced, bright yellow book teetering on a low shelf: "Only The Super-rich Can Save Us!" by Ralph Nader, affectionately known as America's First Citizen for his decades of serving and advocating on behalf of the American consumer.

The 700-plus page tome of a novel seems a bit at odds with Nader's previous positions. The book's premise is relatively straightforward. Warren Buffet is sitting at home in 2005, watching the immense destruction wrought on New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. Reflecting on the incompetence of the public sector, one of the world's wealthiest decides to throw his gloves in the ring, to use his private resources to help make a positive change in the world. He enlists the help of 16 other among the uber-rich, the millionaires, the pop figures. Warren Beatty runs for Governor, Yoko Ono creates art to motivate the masses. Basically, massive leaps of logic ensue.

Nader, who was never a friend to the rich and famous, started his career by exposing the dark underbellies of huge corporations, yet - after decades on the battlefield - he abandons the approach to try a novel new one. He utilizes fiction to enact the policies he's been pursuing for all those years. In essence, he wrote the book while wearing an imaginary crown. Without dismissing the immense potential of the policies crafted by Nader in the novel, his protagonists will not grow a conscience simply because he urged them to do so in the pages of his book, the literary taunt will not encourage selfish people to atone for their behavior. In fact, I think this work may persuade others to bring their public advocacy into the realm of fiction and literature - a positive development all on its own.

The premise of the book induces a number of questions relevant for our discussions:

Is it possible for people to change?
- Can a billionaire who has made his fortune from scheming the less fortunate see the light - so to speak - and mend his way?
- Can the first-world population sacrifice the excess of entertainment and indulgence to take a more active involvement in politics?

Can a handful of people cause change?
- Can the few wealthy souls at the top truly turn our world towards a better future?
- How would these billions of dollars actually be used to aid this effort?

Can a handful of people be trusted?
- What would the world's "saviors" expect in return for their good deeds?
- Even if their motives were benevolent, can power really be entrusted into the hands of a select few?
--- If we are to believe the age old adage, "power tends to corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", could the benevolent few turn into the corrupted lot?

These are only a number of potential questions for discussion, but I'd love to hear what other ones my fellow bloggers will see, or what answers they'd have to the questions presented.

Shalom from the City of Angels,

Roei Eisenberg

[ArianaS]

I am not a huge fan of Nader, for USA Presidential election reasons, among other reasons- but I do find thee questions worthy of discussion:
My opinions (and I am often receptive to a change in opinion when met with a ****good**** argument, so please share a response to mine!)
Is it possible for people to change? yes, see below:
- Can a billionaire who has made his fortune from scheming the less fortunate see the light - so to speak - and mend his way? Some people feel guilty only when caught, however guilt whether naturally felt or brought upon by punishment if a very powerful thing. One man/womens actions often place burden on others, not victims of a scheme, but more along the lines of family members and friends. With the support of these 'loved' ones - one may feel a necessity to right his/her wrongs. This is the change, the second chance or the realization that the schemer can mend his/her wrongdoings, if it is to please his/her self interest in getting rid of the guilt or to actually do good- in my opinion is irrelevant- doing good is often a selfish act- but selfishness isn't always a bad thing. What if the billionaire isn't a just that- but a country and nation - like Germany- I don't hold today's Germans responsible for the Holocaust, the country and people have made strides in reparation and diplomatic affairs toward the world, not only the Jewish nation. Germany, like no country is perfect, but had it seen the light- compared to the 1930's and 40's I'd say "yes!".
- Can the first-world population sacrifice the excess of entertainment and indulgence to take a more active involvement in politics? I'll begin this question with a question.. does a first-world population need to sacrifice the excess of entertainment in order to be more active, etc? I don't think it's a one or the other situation. Many people make a fortune through the entertainment and luxury industry- and in return are charitable. Sort of like a tax? We pay our entertainers by going to their concerts and buying their products and then they use (part of) their income to send monetary and physical relief in places like Haiti, by adopting children, setting up scholarship funds and so on. I am not a huge fan of the fact that these people are paid millions while educators, doctors and caretakers are paid considerably less and so "charitable" work on a daily basis, but in a capitalist market, I think this is how it is- and I think it's right, in some way, I think it just works out - maybe some reform would be useful and just, but I'm not asking or suggesting total reform. Specific to politics, what's democracy -- is it not the total inclusion of all people in politics? Or, at least the ability for those who want to be included or heard be so? Typical Israeli answering a question, with a question!

Can a handful of people cause change?
- Can the few wealthy souls at the top truly turn our world towards a better future? See above. Can they? Maybe, if they all gave a lot more! Everyday people, even without money cause change. There is a false notion that money drives the world. I think it is human determination and action that does. Money is a fast way to make an impact, but it may not be the most effective for long term sustainability. Teach a man to fish and he will be fed for his life.... buy him fish, he eats for a day (excuse my reordering of the proverb). Help a man fish and teach him how.. you both eat for life!!!
- How would these billions of dollars actually be used to aid this effort? Money buys goods and services. Services may be done voluntarily as well. It is service, community and international that makes change for the betterment of our future. Political change, environmental change, human rights change, etc- it is done by human involvement- we need to be more energy efficient by walking instead of driving, raising less cattle and chickens (mass meat market) and eating more fruits, grains and vegetables. Political change can be done by demanding more from our representatives and getting involved by running for offices. Human rights is an issue like global climate change- some people just prefer to be ignorant. Money buys radio ads and billboards, but human networking and writing and volunteer work is often free... and most valuable.

Can a handful of people be trusted?
- What would the world's "saviors" expect in return for their good deeds? Perhaps it's the selfishness is knowing you may get recognition or self satisfaction by doing good. And if so, great. For those that may be altruistic, wonderful. For those who aren't, what do they expect? I don't know- does it matter, they may not get it!
- Even if their motives were benevolent, can power really be entrusted into the hands of a select few? Checks and balances. Can a group of a few be trusted, yes. I think some individuals are worthy of total trust. Checks and balances come from the transparency of the 'groups' work- let it be monitored- and keep in mind those who monitor may have ulterior motives. So it's a system.
--- If we are to believe the age old adage, "power tends to corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", could the benevolent few turn into the corrupted lot? If this quote were taken as truth, yes. I don't deny power can have an adverse effect on some (or many) but I have more faith than that... it's all about not giving absolute power to avoid even the possibility of such corruption.

Agree, disagree? I'm interested in everyone's thoughts!

[AlexDavid]

Hello both!

Very interesting topic. Read both your entries with great interest, and agree with a lot of what you said Ariana.
However... there is a very important missing variable here: the recipients! Corruption at the recipient level. Am reading a book on France and its involvement in Africa and to give you an idea of the numbers of what actually reaches the really needy from donations - the present example is state-level aid, but still gives a quite accurate idea of the process:
- 25 to 30 % go straight into local leaders' pockets;
- 12 % go to the expats managing the "projects" (that allowed the donation to happen in the first place);
- 55 to 60 % have to be used buying material from the donor country;
- ............ 3 % actually reach the end destination..........

Without even going into the problems of the developing countries, look at what happens when natural catastrophes strike: look at what is happening in Haiti.

So yes, there is growing problem of unbalanced wealth, but "finishing what's on your plate" will not put more on the plate of some starving child.
Likewise, giving more is not what will make the change in the end, but rather creating the opportunities. Which will not happen until corruption stops at both end of the barrel... but there just seems to be too much money in that barrel for anyone to give it up.

Alex

[zoe]

Hi There!
I really like the potential for discussion that these questions have sparked. I am going to follow what my fellow bloggers have done and post answers to the questions you have posed and then go and make individual responses. Very interesting, Roei!


Is it possible for people to change?
I think it is possible for people to change. I don't think that change occurs quickly but I think it is possible to shift our internal perspective. I think that the way this is most effectively done is by day-in-day-out work on our personalities and the way we act and react to situations we encounter. A lifetime is comprised of daily living and I think that daily living provides us with the potential. I can see changes in myself, in the way that I react to situations. One of the biggest ways to see change coming from within is when we react differently to a similar situation. I think that in matters of reconciliation, individual change requires a great deal of perseverance and emotional brevity.

Can a handful of people cause change?
I think that it is more difficult for a handful of people to cause change than it is for one individual to cause change. I think that there are two levels in the case of a handful of individuals causing change. I think that the individual grows and changes themselves and in the process of doing this continues to try to be part of a group that is seeking to change things. I think that as the group goes through the experiences of individual change, it also must change. I don't know if this inhibits or promotes the external impact of the group but perhaps one of our Rwandan counterparts can share some of their own experience on this.

Thanks for reading!
Zoe

[TamarSloustcher]

Is it possible for people to change?

People are capable of changing as individuals, but it takes place over a extended period of time. People need to be dedicated to creating this change in themselves on a daily basis knowing others will believe the change has teken place when they feel ready to do so. If someone has cheated on a test in school once, it doesn't make them a cheater. If that person resists the temptation of cheating for the rest of the school year, he/she has shown that they have changed. The character of a person has a large influence as to whether someone can truly change their ways.

"Action which defines a man, describes his character, is action which has been repeated over and over and so has come, in time, to be a coherent and relatively independent mode of behavior." -Allen Wheelis

Change in people and even groups is not a common phenomenon. It is quite respectable when someone males an attempt to change their character and it s able to do so. The question is who decides what change is or if it is enough? How do we define change?

If someone says they are sorry for what they have done, does that mean they have changed? Are words really enough? Who gets to decide?