When life gives you lemons you do NOT need to make lemonade

I want to address a topic that only the guy to the left apparently understands. At a time when the American economy has produced unacceptable unemployment, when workers who have jobs are underpaid and have no medical benefits, when the hard won ability to bargain collectively has come undone intellectually as well as politically, it is time to offer the future leaders of this nation a choice: on May 1, 2011, our children can reflect on the trials and tribulations of those who labor for a living, or they can sell lemonade. In the future, perhaps this question will become a litmus test similar to positions staked by past generations on suffrage, slavery, and war.

Though, I hope not.

Okay, perhaps my cynicism has made me a bit delusional, but I noticed that there is a national movement to celebrate Lemonade Day every year in May--not on Memorial Day, mind you, but on May 1, which I believe continues to be International Workers' Day for many countries around the world. So why draft yet another celebration day for an already cluttered American calendar? And why put on (or very close to) May 1?

Lemonade Day celebrates entrepreneurship, which in the political lexicon of our contemporary moment could credibly be considered the ideological opposite of a day that celebrates labor. On the website created to promote Lemonade Day, the organizers explain that they want communities--meaning families, businesses and schools--to help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Accordingly, "Kids plan for success by setting goals, creating budgets, securing investors, selecting a site, purchasing supplies, serving customers, making a profit, repaying investors and giving back to the community. This fun, free and exciting program encourages participants to 'save a little, spend a little, share a little,' instilling valuable principles that will help prepare them for life." And after all, we know that managerial values form organically and are unimpeachable. Parents and schools can simply feed kids these "principles" without a shred of ambiguity and conflict. And God blesses America, too.

The creative genius behind this movement is Michael Holthouse, a Houston-based businessman who made a fortune in the telecommunication business and now operates or contributes to a series of non-profits that seek to rescue at-risk kids by offering them the holy grail the American life--the business plan. In a powerpoint presentation promoting Holthouse's approach, he frames the imperative for our time as a choice between a future of gang-bangers or happy little girls with a lemonade stand that basks in sunny racial harmony. But clearly Holthouse does not imagine he is merely a social reformer--he is no Rauschenbusch--rather he pushes the American Dream, that ubiquitous ideal open to all but clearly only achieved by the kind of success enjoyed by Holthouse.

In a era during in which the idea of labor seems exiled to some Manichean universe, despite the ravages of unemployment, and murals of workers painted by a patriotic American (and daughter of a war veteran, to boot) are being taken down in Maine, the rise of lemonade stands on May 1, 2011 might appear as one of those signposts in a new age of fracture.

When life gives you lemons you do NOT need to make lemonade

I want to address a topic that only the guy to the left apparently understands. At a time when the American economy has produced unacceptable unemployment, when workers who have jobs are underpaid and have no medical benefits, when the hard won ability to bargain collectively has come undone intellectually as well as politically, it is time to offer the future leaders of this nation a choice: on May 1, 2011, our children can reflect on the trials and tribulations of those who labor for a living, or they can sell lemonade. In the future, perhaps this question will become a litmus test similar to positions staked by past generations on suffrage, slavery, and war.

Though, I hope not.

Okay, perhaps my cynicism has made me a bit delusional, but I noticed that there is a national movement to celebrate Lemonade Day every year in May--not on Memorial Day, mind you, but on May 1, which I believe continues to be International Workers' Day for many countries around the world. So why draft yet another celebration day for an already cluttered American calendar? And why put on (or very close to) May 1?

Lemonade Day celebrates entrepreneurship, which in the political lexicon of our contemporary moment could credibly be considered the ideological opposite of a day that celebrates labor. On the website created to promote Lemonade Day, the organizers explain that they want communities--meaning families, businesses and schools--to help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Accordingly, "Kids plan for success by setting goals, creating budgets, securing investors, selecting a site, purchasing supplies, serving customers, making a profit, repaying investors and giving back to the community. This fun, free and exciting program encourages participants to 'save a little, spend a little, share a little,' instilling valuable principles that will help prepare them for life." And after all, we know that managerial values form organically and are unimpeachable. Parents and schools can simply feed kids these "principles" without a shred of ambiguity and conflict. And God blesses America, too.

The creative genius behind this movement is Michael Holthouse, a Houston-based businessman who made a fortune in the telecommunication business and now operates or contributes to a series of non-profits that seek to rescue at-risk kids by offering them the holy grail the American life--the business plan. In a powerpoint presentation promoting Holthouse's approach, he frames the imperative for our time as a choice between a future of gang-bangers or happy little girls with a lemonade stand that basks in sunny racial harmony. But clearly Holthouse does not imagine he is merely a social reformer--he is no Rauschenbusch--rather he pushes the American Dream, that ubiquitous ideal open to all but clearly only achieved by the kind of success enjoyed by Holthouse.

In a era during in which the idea of labor seems exiled to some Manichean universe, despite the ravages of unemployment, and murals of workers painted by a patriotic American (and daughter of a war veteran, to boot) are being taken down in Maine, the rise of lemonade stands on May 1, 2011 might appear as one of those signposts in a new age of fracture.

The President's Tie

In the 2011 State of the Union address, Barack Obama wore bi-partisanship around his neck--his tie was neither red nor blue but some color blend of the two. His veep, Joe Biden, seemed to have on a tie of blue with red stripes, perhaps worn in solidarity with the president. In the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Arizona, people expect at least a nod in the direction of civility, a notion, as intellectual historian James Kloppenberg made clear in his recent book on Obama and in his keynote address to the 2010 USIH conference, that the president has trafficked in for a long time. So in this purplish haze, did Obama offer a way for us to channel our "e pluribus unum"?

Yes, as long as we are on board with the president--preferably riding in a high-speed train between two cities that run on "clean energy." As Kloppenberg makes clear in his analysis of Obama, the president enjoys a good debate, but does not see compromise as the ultimate goal of democratic deliberations. He does not hesitate to state, as he did in the State of the Union, that we should do something because "it is the right thing to do." It was the right thing to do to pass a comprehensive healthcare bill. It was the right thing to do to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was the right thing to do to initiate Race to the Top. He also included a list of things that were not so much wrong, but ultimately not right, such as, extending tax cuts for the nation's wealthy; targeting illegal immigrants and their children (especially when they are in college or the military); and, giving in to Tea Party demands to close down half the federal government.

As many commentators note, this Obama speech was heavy on policy ideas and bit lighter on soaring rhetoric. There were still moments, though, that illustrated Obama's command of the rhetorical presidency--he had a "I'm not a socialist" moment near the end of the speech when he declared to a rousing standing ovation that no one in the House chamber would want to be in any country other than the United States. Fair enough, Obama made it clear he has no intention of turning Swedish. But such assurances had little effect on the Michelle Bachmann projects around the country and their constant state of seemingly satisfying paranoia. I say satisfying because never has paranoia been meted out with the kind of smiles worn by the Minnesota representative and Alaska's (least?) favorite daughter.

But what of Obama's plan to re-imagine the American dream as a high-tech, highly-educated future? With references to another imagined landscape, the Kennedy years of Camelot, Obama suggested that Americans realized their potential as dreamers when they looked beyond the end of their noses--toward the moon, or, at least, at some other superpower.

This blog has engaged in some excellent discussion on two issues that seem fundamental to Obama's vision--the power of a free market mentality and the promise of American education. I would like to hear from my fellow bloggers on what they saw in Obama's vision. Did Obama err on the side of the market or did he propose a plan to harness (regulate) the market for the interests of the nation? Is Obama a neo-liberal warlord, or the pragmatist of Kloppenberg's analysis? And finally, did Obama offer a revision of the American dream? Consider two statements to contrast, the first from George W. Bush's last State of the Union in January 2008 and the second from Obama last night.

"In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our Nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.

To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy." George W. Bush, 2008 State of the Union

"We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools, changing the way we use energy, reducing our deficit –- none of this will be easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The costs. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working-class kid from Scranton can sit behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth." Barack Obama, 2011 State of the Union

The President's Tie

In the 2011 State of the Union address, Barack Obama wore bi-partisanship around his neck--his tie was neither red nor blue but some color blend of the two. His veep, Joe Biden, seemed to have on a tie of blue with red stripes, perhaps worn in solidarity with the president. In the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Arizona, people expect at least a nod in the direction of civility, a notion, as intellectual historian James Kloppenberg made clear in his recent book on Obama and in his keynote address to the 2010 USIH conference, that the president has trafficked in for a long time. So in this purplish haze, did Obama offer a way for us to channel our "e pluribus unum"?

Yes, as long as we are on board with the president--preferably riding in a high-speed train between two cities that run on "clean energy." As Kloppenberg makes clear in his analysis of Obama, the president enjoys a good debate, but does not see compromise as the ultimate goal of democratic deliberations. He does not hesitate to state, as he did in the State of the Union, that we should do something because "it is the right thing to do." It was the right thing to do to pass a comprehensive healthcare bill. It was the right thing to do to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was the right thing to do to initiate Race to the Top. He also included a list of things that were not so much wrong, but ultimately not right, such as, extending tax cuts for the nation's wealthy; targeting illegal immigrants and their children (especially when they are in college or the military); and, giving in to Tea Party demands to close down half the federal government.

As many commentators note, this Obama speech was heavy on policy ideas and bit lighter on soaring rhetoric. There were still moments, though, that illustrated Obama's command of the rhetorical presidency--he had a "I'm not a socialist" moment near the end of the speech when he declared to a rousing standing ovation that no one in the House chamber would want to be in any country other than the United States. Fair enough, Obama made it clear he has no intention of turning Swedish. But such assurances had little effect on the Michelle Bachmann projects around the country and their constant state of seemingly satisfying paranoia. I say satisfying because never has paranoia been meted out with the kind of smiles worn by the Minnesota representative and Alaska's (least?) favorite daughter.

But what of Obama's plan to re-imagine the American dream as a high-tech, highly-educated future? With references to another imagined landscape, the Kennedy years of Camelot, Obama suggested that Americans realized their potential as dreamers when they looked beyond the end of their noses--toward the moon, or, at least, at some other superpower.

This blog has engaged in some excellent discussion on two issues that seem fundamental to Obama's vision--the power of a free market mentality and the promise of American education. I would like to hear from my fellow bloggers on what they saw in Obama's vision. Did Obama err on the side of the market or did he propose a plan to harness (regulate) the market for the interests of the nation? Is Obama a neo-liberal warlord, or the pragmatist of Kloppenberg's analysis? And finally, did Obama offer a revision of the American dream? Consider two statements to contrast, the first from George W. Bush's last State of the Union in January 2008 and the second from Obama last night.

"In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our Nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.

To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy." George W. Bush, 2008 State of the Union

"We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools, changing the way we use energy, reducing our deficit –- none of this will be easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The costs. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working-class kid from Scranton can sit behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth." Barack Obama, 2011 State of the Union