Rights is the Wrong Word (We need to talk about "needs")

As a 73 year old left-hander, I can testify to the dextrocentrism that defines our world. Those who studied Latin can easily recognize my neologism: dexter is latin for “right.” The Greco-Latin root for “left” is sinister. We tighten everything clockwise. Even the lowly screw is a right-handed tool, because it is most naturally and powerfully tightened by the right hand. Given that roughly 90% are right-handed, this bias goes almost completely unnoticed, One might say it's like water to fish. Not surprisingly, it dominates many other aspects of life. The common synonym for correct is “right.” Even left-handers say it reflexively. In politics, the Right is always more “conservative,” the Left more likely to be radical. They say this dates back to monarchies, where the most important allies of the king always sat on his right. What, you may well ask, does this have to do with “needs?” Let's start with the concept of Human Rights: we call the first ten amendments of the Constitution the Bill of Rights. It mandates only political rights. Nothing there about economic rights, like food, shelter, education and healthcare. America never signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because it includes those economic rights. Educated foreigners correctly consider us hypocrites when we criticize others for their policies regarding Human Rights. They know that in the real world, economic needs take precedence over political rights. Further, the word “rights” implies entitlements, mandated by laws. Thus, we have a so-called Social Security system that has been sold as a universal retirement plan, which must reward in proportion to the amount “invested.” That was the only way FDR could get conservative Democrats to support the program during the Depression. But, look at its name: Social Security: i.e., a social commitment to the security of those who really need it. There's that word again. With the breakdown of intergenerational support, many elderly citizens would not survive without their Social Security check. In a perfect world, it would be understood that younger, productive citizens have a moral obligation to ensure that all elders have access to the things they need to survive. If we really want to protect Social Security, the easiest way is to deny it to those who manifestly do not need it. If we removed the ceiling on Social Security taxes, those to whom needs are irrelevant could pay for a more generous compensation for the needy elderly. As for Medicare, the most obvious solution is to provide Universal Medical Care, with a requirement for those who want more than basic care to pay for it. We all know that America pays much more for Healthcare than any other developed country, while our health outcomes are among the worst. Drugs, surgery, hospital stays, all cost multiples of what they would if we just removed the profit motive from the situation. In San Francisco, where I live, the cost of housing is astronomical, fueled by overpaid technicians working in the Internet. It's not just the poor and the elderly who are being evicted and bankrupted. Even the rapidly disappearing Middle Class (police, firemen, electricians, plumbers, etc.) are becoming endangered species. The lion's share of new construction is multi-million dollar condos and apartments that are often just convenient pieds-a-terre, used only for a few weeks while the owners are here on vacation or business. When basic needs are provided for a profit, when prices for these needs are determined by whatever the the market will bear, many are left behind. Since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, it has become increasingly clear that a rising tide does not lift all boats. It's more likely to swamp and sink those that are not yachts. Is there a solution? Not likely in our present politico-economic scenario. The Plutocrats have hijacked our democracy. Plato is smiling somewhere. In the Republic, Socrates avers that the main fallacy of democracy is the false assumption that all citizens are equally capable of self-government. Greek democracy had failed when Oligarchs hired Sophists (we call them “spin doctors”) to use their rhetorical skills to convince less enlightened citizens to vote against their own best interests. Sound familiar? After more than 200 years, our Constitution has lost its luster. Thomas Jefferson wrote that new Revolutions would be necessary over time, as things changed. Sadly, however, ours seems to have been the only Revolution in History that was not immediately replaced by something worse. What we need is not revolutionary but evolutionary change, based on needs, not rights. Since 1980, we have been devolving, regressing to a Medieval form of government that exists to enhance and protect the wealth of those who already have more than they could ever need. If we are to resume evolving, basic human needs must become more important than political rights, which seem to be eroding rapidly in any event. Profit has its place, the markets are not going away, Communism and Socialism have been tried and they failed. But markets can be regulated and profits can be shared more equitably. It has been said that the ultimate judgement of a society is how fairly its fruits are distributed. If so, we should be judged harshly by history. Recently. frustration with Obama's futile attempts to implement the Community Organizing model nationally convinced me to resign from the Executive Board of the San Francisco Organizing Project. A few years ago, I attended a National Training put on by PICO, which is a federation of more than fifty local organizations around the country. One of the instructors suggested that we were trying to create a kind of structure, which, like most buildings, has a front door and a back door. He said that people with real needs (that word again!) come in the front door, while folks with values come in the back door. I am certain that if any political movement was able to organize all the people with needs and those with values, they would represent a significant majority of the American electorate. So far, no such political organization exists, The two major parties have been bought out, and the minor parties want to put bandages on a patient that seems to be terminally ill. The Green Party is a perfect example. Degradation of the environment is essential to our excess consumption, pathological growth economy. Only when those with needs and those with values are finally organized, can we begin to create a more just society.