Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a basic building block for any elementary study of psychology. Maslow identified five stages in the psychological growth of any human being, Physiological Needs, Safety Needs, Love Needs, Esteem Needs, and Self-Actualization, which represent the full range from essentials to indulgence. Each state melds with the one above and below it so that there are variations with elements of another within each state.

Change from one state to a higher one is considered to be “success.” Change in the downward direction is bad because it requires a re-focus on survival skills rather than indulgence. So, change is good, but change is bad.

Homeostasis is the nature of ecological, biological, and social systems to oppose change with every means at their disposal. According to the Principia Cybernetica Web:

Homeostasis is one of the most remarkable and most typical properties of highly complex open systems. A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms. Such a system reacts to every change in the environment, or to every random disturbance, through a series of modifications of equal size and opposite direction to those that created the disturbance. The goal of these modifications is to maintain the internal balances.

So, change is not good. Change is bad.

Maslow was interested in individuals, and his concepts are meant to apply to individuals. The concept of homeostasis developed by physiologist Walter Cannon was also intended, originally, to apply to individual organisms. Both do have value in looking at group activity on both the micro (individual) and macro (group) level.

According to Maslow, the base state is the need to satisfy physiological needs:food, air, water, sleep. These are all requirements for survival of the individual, and other needs will not even be a consideration unless these are met. In the US, these needs are met for all who want them. Nobody goes unfed or unsheltered unless they so choose. Children in this country are not hungry unless their parents decide they need to be. The safety net is in place and functional.

The second level in Maslow’s structure is safety. One cannot progress without a sense of security. In day-to-day living, the vast majority of Americans give no thought to this. Some in this country cannot progress beyond this state, in spite of having achieved some elements of the higher states.

The third level is love, or bonding, or belonging. It includes personal one-on-one relationships as well as group identity. This and the next level are where the majority of Americans stay, and want to be. It is the level socialism seeks for us all.

That next level is esteem. This includes self-esteem, which is where, we are told, society wants us all to be. It is the desire for adulation at one extreme, and the sense of being respected at another.

Finally, the highest state of being in Maslow’s world is self-actualization. At this level, all your baser needs are met, and you are free to indulge yourself. You can become everything you ever wanted to be. You can do anything you ever wanted to do. It is the essence of capitalism.

In the United States, we have collectively lived in the level 3 to level 4 range (let’s call it Level 3.5) for the last forty years. Individually, we would all like to achieve self-actualization. Yet we know that stage is nearly impossible to reach as a group because there are always those content to stay at the lower levels. So we content ourselves with being at the “belonging” stage culturally. It is comfortable. It is why we have interest groups, and the hated “special-interest groups.” The only difference being that any group we belong to isn’t one of those. Every disease or human failing has a support group we can join. We certainly desire adulation, and bestow it on some in substitution for respect. We certainly want respect ourselves. Culturally, though, adulation is more important.

These statics have become dynamics since September 11, 2001. As a nation, we fell from Level 3.5 to Level 2. Homeostasis was strong, and now we are trying to regain our balance.

There is a very angry group which wants a quick return to “belonging.” Getting to “esteem” isn’t even a consideration. They want to belong to the world, belong to the UN, belong to one another. They just want to belong, and don’t really care whom they belong with. This has driven the Dean campaign.

There are those who want to again reach the esteem level. They aren’t interested in adulation, but do want respect. The rest of the world had lost its respect for the US. They are now beginning to understand that is a bad thing.

Honoring someone with respect is not the same as demeaning oneself. Equals respect one another. But if you live in the world of “belonging,” respect is higher. From your perspective, you are ceding status. Those who live in the levels below this don’t want to offer respect because they view it as adulation.

This is the crux of the far left’s hatred of George Bush. They know what our country has accomplished in the last two years. They know we have once again climbed up from the security level. They know they would be happy reaching a state of belonging. But they know he wants us to go to the level of respect–respect from the outside, and self-respect. I believe some actually respect him, but can’t express it for fear of being accused by their group of adoring him.

This election will be one of the most important in years. The choice is one of adopting the world community’s socialistic culture completely, or insisting on achiving the higher state of respect and preventing another decline into the security level.

Personally, I’m shooting for the top. And so is Ed Koch:

“I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York’s City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: ‘If you need a helping hand, we will provide it.’ The Republican Party’s philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: ‘If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same.’ Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to re-elect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription-drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.”

When I was visiting my folks this week, the local newspaper (left-leaning) published a syndicated political cartoon showing a poor child staring at a growth chart for the economy. She was dragging a rag doll from a dilapidated Christmas tree.

In the same paper, different section, they published a photo of two ‘poor’ boys riding their new scooters in front of their house.

That night I rode patrol with my son. His regular area of patrol includes houses just like the one in the photo–and some much worse. There were plenty of people wandering the streets, and quite a few hanging out at isolated houses. Men sat on cars out front, or on the porch. As the police car approached, they moved back toward the front door. My son told me the laws were different when you dealt with someone in their yard, and when they were in a house. These guys were the local punks, or gang members, or drug dealers.

As I rode around, I kept asking myself why people would live like this. For most of them, it was a choice, although they didn’t realize the choice they were making at the time. All it takes to get out of an environment like that is to get an education and leave.

Those are two things which are very difficult for the young people there. Getting an education is seen as ‘acting white’� That is a fact. Regardless of the quality of our public schools, it is possible to get a decent education. You simply have to make an effort. They are not ‘required to support their family,’ because the government does that. So, working a job while going to school isn’t an issue. They’ve had no help in learning prior to going to their first class because the Head Start Program has failed to teach them anything. They have no motivation to learn.

If they do learn and earn a high school diploma, they have to be willing to leave to get work. Many will not. While there may be no jobs in their neighborhood, there are jobs available. In the past there have been great migrations in this country to move where the work was. Not today. People aren’t interested unless they can remain in their own back yard. I’ve seen this with engineering students about to graduate, so it isn’t limited to the poor.

Without these two preconditions, all the welfare, job training, and good intentions mean nothing. These people and their children, and their grandchildren will remain in this poverty.

I was struck by how much the environment resembled animals in the wild. They are a large herd, or family group. They don’t mate for life, rather the males struggle with one another to achieve dominance and females. Children are born to be reared by the females. Males travel in packs, preying on the weak. The rest of the time they lounge around. The older males educate the young in these practices, bringing them into adulthood as full members of the pack.

When I was young, I remember (right or wrong) that familial ties were strong in southern black communities. Homes were generally overseen by a matriarch, who tolerated no sass. When my high school integrated (one of the first), we received half the students of the local black high school. We also received their teachers. I remember, and fondly, Mr. Riley Stewart. He was the principal of that school, and became our vice-principal. An absolutely wonderful man. When any black student got into trouble, they went to see Mr. Stewart. That was one appointment I never wanted to have. He demanded self-discipline. Mr. Stewart knew this was an opportunity, and the black community needed to take advantage of it. He would not tolerate any student putting it in jeopardy.

Mr. Prince Barfield was a band director. He, too, expected self-discipline. My Civics teacher was a wonderful lady whose name I don’t recall at this moment. She was an excellent teacher, and understood government far better than I do now.

Those teachers, and their students, succeeded because they saw themselves in a larger world. Many of those black students became good friends of mine, and they also became successful adults. They broadened their own outlook by expanding their world.

The poor blacks I saw the other night have the same opportunity for success as anyone else in this country. What they don’t have is enough desire to overcome the inertia of their environment. There will be a very small number willing to invest the effort in their own education, and willing to take that first difficult step into a larger world by leaving the ‘hood. Those that do are the only ones exercising the freedom they have to improve their lives.

And they won’t come back. There’s no place for Riley Stewart in the ‘hood.