Dear Commons Community,

In the past week, there have been several articles and reports regarding the waning of marriage as a social institution in this country especially among young adults.   David Brooks weighs in with a column entitled, The Talent Society.  He credits this transformation to individualism as follows:

“We can all think of reasons for this transformation. Affluence: people have more money to live apart if they want to. Feminism: women have more power to define their own lives. The aging society: more widows and widowers live alone. The information revolution: the Internet and smartphones make it easier to construct far-flung, flexible networks. Skepticism: more people believe that marriage is not for them.

But if there is one theme that weaves through all the different causes, it is this: The maximization of talent. People want more space to develop their own individual talents. They want more flexibility to explore their own interests and develop their own identities, lifestyles and capacities.”

This strikes true to me and my own observations and relationships.  Brooks concludes:

“Today, the fast flexible and diverse networks allow the ambitious and the gifted to surf through amazing possibilities. They are able to construct richer, more varied lives. They are able to enjoy interesting information-age workplaces and then go home and find serenity in a one-bedroom apartment.

On the other hand, people who lack social capital are more likely to fall through the cracks. It takes effort, organization and a certain set of skills to surf these new, protean social networks. People who are unable to make the effort or lack social capital are more likely to be alone…

Over all, we’ve made life richer for the people who have the social capital to create their own worlds. We’ve also made it harder for the people who don’t — especially poorer children.”

I don’t see the above changing anytime soon.  Those of us involved with education have a duty particularly for students who do not come to school or college with social capital, to work as hard as we can to give them the skills to succeed.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

For those of us following the presidential primaries, we have increasingly heard/seen the impact of super PACs.  A “super PAC” is like a traditional PAC (Political Action Committee) without many of the restrictions. A “super PAC” can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the sole purpose of supporting or opposing political candidates. A “super PAC” can directly attack a political candidate. The only caveat is that a “super PAC” is not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties.

The New York Times  is reporting on the individuals who are among the largest donors to super Pacs during this election cycle.  For example:

“Last June, Harold C. Simmons, a wealthy Texas businessman, sent a $100,000 check to Americans for Rick Perry, a “super PAC” preparing for Mr. Perry’s entry into the presidential race. A few months later, he donated $1 million to a different pro-Perry group through his company. In December, as Mr. Perry’s fortunes waned, Mr. Simmons wrote another check, this one for $500,000, to Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich.

But Mr. Simmons was not done. In mid-January, as Mr. Gingrich was headed toward a victory in the South Carolina primary, Mr. Simmons wrote a $100,000 check to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. And toward the end of the month, as Restore Our Future used his money to help bludgeon Mr. Gingrich with attack ads in Florida, Mr. Simmons sent yet another $500,000 check to Mr. Gingrich’s super PAC.

“He generally supports conservative Republican candidates,” said Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for Mr. Simmons. “I assume he was just trying to be helpful.”

Mr. Simmons’s contributions — all told, he has given more than $14 million to Republican super PACs so far this cycle — make him the exemplar of a new breed of superdonor in presidential politics. About two dozen individuals, couples or corporations have given $1 million or more to Republican super PACs this year, an exclusive club empowered by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other rulings to pool their money into federal political committees and pour it directly into this year’s presidential campaign.

Collectively, their contributions have totaled more than $50 million this cycle, making them easily the most influential and powerful political donors in politics today…

Some of the superdonors… are longtime backers of independent groups that were active in past campaigns, like the Swift Boat group, which in 2004 challenged the Vietnam War record of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.

Several attend the exclusive, secretive gatherings of wealthy conservative donors hosted twice a year by the billionaire Koch brothers. ..”

The New York Times has provided a website that lists  a number of the major super PAC donors for all the candidates including President Barack Obama.

In an age where the need to buy “exposure time” in the mass media is critical for national candidates, these super PACs provide an unfair advantage in making or breaking candidates. It makes a joke of the first words of the United States Constitution about “We, the people…”  In reality, they  been replaced by “We, the people with money…”

We are in a country and world ruled by elites.  For further information, I highly recommend The Rise of the New Global Elite by Chrystia Freeland that appeared in The Atlantic in January/February 2011.

Tony