Choices, Choices

I simply cannot make my mind up about Live 8. I really can't.

I remember watching Live Aid during the summer of 1985. I remember actually having permission to watch MTV all day long, and that was unusual because MTV and VH1 were VERBOTEN in my parents' household. (According to my parents, they only showed "smut," in case you were wondering.) Not like that usually stopped me, but at least, for one day, I didn't have to be covert about it. Don't ask me why I remember this bit, but I also remember my mother having purchased a boatload of peaches that weekend. She was going to can something like fifteen flats of peaches (there had been a bumper crop that summer) and she needed my help to slip them of their skins while she filled the jars and manned the canning equipment. This wasn't a job you had to be there the entire time to do: she'd pour the hot water on the peaches, she'd call me in from the family room where I was watching Live Aid, I'd run and do my deal, scalding my fingers in the process, then I'd run back to the family room, three rooms down to see what else was happening.

Because a lot happened that day and it was pretty cool for an impressionable fourteen-year-old. People were actually doing something about the pictures they saw on the news every night and that was cool. And it was new. History was being made and I, who was busy running back and forth between the tee vee and the kitchen in my house in Omaha, Nebraska, was a part of it because I was watching. I didn't have any money to give, but they had my support. My fourteen-year-old self supported their efforts wholeheartedly.

But I'm not fourteen anymore.

And that's precisely why I'm leery of this whole thing. Here's the official website of The One Campaign. I'm sure you've seen the ads in recent days, like I have. And while I'm wholeheartedly for the overall goal they're advocating, it's this "One Voice" business that's bothering me. Because if we're all to speak with "one voice," well, if I sign my name to this, doesn't that, in a way, make me responsible for stupid statements on the part of the celebrities who are a part of this along with the good things they're advocating? Because they've made it plain and clear that they don't want my money: they want my voice instead.

And I value my voice more than I value my money. Even if neither of them means all that much in the real world.

Here's their declaration:

“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”

I agree with most of that. Debt relief is good, provided it's not going to countries ruled by kleptocrats and dictators, like Zimbabwe. Corruption is, of course, reprehensible and should be fought against vigorously. Same goes with the living conditions of much of the developing world. I disagree, however, with the notion that there is such a thing as "fair trade"---nothing in life is fair, particularly economics. These people, I believe, would advocate more WTO and IMF intervention in these matters and I don't believe that would help anything. A free market is what is needed to level the playing field. A free market where countries could get a fair price for the goods and services they produce without protectionist tariffs and subsidies screwing things up for the little guy. These people, I believe, would advocate a legal solution that would ensure that first world economies would suffer and that the see-saw would swing toward developing nations. I think that if first world countries ended subsidies and tarriffs, the market would open up to developing countries' goods and services and the market---not some IGO---would decide who would be successful and who wouldn't. But that's just me.

And my voice isn't worth as much as say, some rock star's voice.

{...}"I think in some ways that's the key thing -- the actual money on the table," said Richard Curtis, the writer of hit films such as Four Weddings and A Funeral who is one of the leading members of the anti-poverty campaign.

"None of the pop stars would tell you that they understand these issues in depth, but the politicians do and what politicians have to understand is that actually the pop stars do represent normal people."{...}

{emphasis mine}

Ummm, no they don't. Chris Martin---Mr. "All Shareholders Are Evil, Yet I'm Very Happy To Cash The Multimillon Dollar Checks My Record Label Sends Me"---doesn't represent me. I have absolutely NOTHING in common with Chris Martin. He's not a "normal" person. Or Richard Curtis, other than we both call ourselves writers. He's not a "normal" person, either. I have nothing in common with Brad Pitt or Emma Thomspon or Jamie Foxx or Tom Hanks, either. These are not common people. They're all loaded to the gills with money. They live in big houses that cost millions of dollars, and they don't have to struggle to come up with the mortgage payment. They drive fancy cars that they purchase with cash. They are famous, well-paid people, who are probably, in part, motivated to help because they feel guilty about all the money they have. My voice means absolutely squat in the real world. I can yell all I want, but all I'm ever really doing here with the blog or in real life is adding it to the cacophany of people who still won't be listened to no matter how loudly we all yell. We're easily blocked out by those in charge. But my voice still means something to me. I value it highly, even if other people don't. These celebrities' voices, however, are worth something. When they speak, the world listens.

So, you can understand why I would be a bit leery to sign this thing, can't you? I mean, in essence, I would be advocating an international shadow government made up celebrities, who want to wield their power to do good, but whose methods I would perhaps disagree with. Is the end worth the means? And that's only provided their ends actually work and do some good. If I add my voice to theirs, well, it would finally be worth something, wouldn't it? But is that what I want? To signal politicians that the only time they have to pay attention to the masses, me included, other than on election day, is when celebrities get involved and push hard for something?

I don't know. Good intentions do indeed pave the road to hell. I believe the Ethiopians who were supposed to be helped by Live Aid might have some opinions about that, provided they're still alive today to give them. Yet if this whole thing could mean even a partial end to poverty; that it could potentially give relief to people who need it, how could I deny them that? After all, my voice isn't worth much by itself or even with a million others added to it; my voice is cheap; why should I hesitate to add mine to theirs?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by Kathy at June 29, 2005 12:18 PM