... said the attorney defending police against charges of brutality in the arrest of a retired black teacher. (AP news story by Ross Sneyd, 10/13/05)

The twisted syntax itself tells a story. Robert Davis was not "trying to be brought under control" – he was clearly trying NOT to be brought under control.

It’s the same syntax we hear from the White House, explaining its brutality in Iraq as ‘a nation trying to be brought under control that doesn’t want to be brought under control.’

Underlying this mess is an issue of control, and how people and societies resist being "brought under control" by others. Indeed, control of our own lives and destinies is what freedom is about, what democracy is about, and at a very fundamental level, what life itself is about. And participating in control of our common lives together is what democratic society and democratic government is about. Controlling others through force, fear, coercion, or deceit is what war and imperialism are about, what racism, homophobia, anti-abortionism, religious fanaticism, slavery and torture are about. And, alas, controlling others by limiting access to health care and education, by low wages, job insecurity, and pension-raiding, and by sowing confusion and doubt through the media is what is driving our American polity and the global economy.

In "The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity" Michael Marmot teases out the relationship between health/longevity and how much control people have over their lives (autonomy, freedom) and their participation in community and government (engagement, democracy)

"Why," he asks, "should living in a four bedroom house be better for your health than living in a ... three bedroom apartment?" The answer, he shows, is that it’s not inequalities in wealth, but inequalities in "how much control you have over your life – and the opportunities you have for full social engagement and participation" that are responsible for differences in health, well-being and longevity.

Marmot cites drowning rates on the Titanic: highest in third class, lowest in first class. But the poor didn’t drown just because they were poor. They drowned because they had less control over circumstances of their lives – e.g.: access to lifeboats.

We have seen an eerie replay of the tragedy of the Titanic in the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. In a hundred years we haven’t done much to give poor people better opportunities to control the circumstances of their lives or get engaged in their society. When disaster strikes, they suffer and die in greater numbers.

Marmot also shows an interesting relationship between longevity and wealth in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth for the United States is 76.9 years, with a GDP/person of $34,320. Nineteen nations have higher life expectancy, with Japan at 81.3 years and a GDP/person of $25,130. All nations have lower GDP/person, only three have shorter life expectancies

Marmot’s conclusions have wide-ranging implications. In a broad sense health and longevity themselves are better indicators of the soundness of a society than wealth.

Today, Americans – especially liberals – are regularly accused of being mindless, gutless, spineless, or lacking other organs or attributes that cause them to fail at controlling their lives or participating in public life. The poor are often assumed to be lazy, stupid, or criminal, and deserving of their short brutish lives. Some critics suggest that when stricken with disaster (war, tyranny, genocide, famine, hurricanes, earthquakes) humans either become passive and acquiesce in their destruction, or turn feral, incapable of acting for the common good. The general assumption is that society’s troubles are caused by the such cognitive or moral deficits of individuals.

Our society clearly has serious troubles. We started an unjust war using WMD and torture; we have allowed the dismantling of domestic programs for the common good; we’ve tolerated an administration running on lies and private money. But if we simply ascribe this state of affairs to individual failings, without asking how and why Americans have started behaving in mindless/spineless/feral ways, we will have been co-opted by the ideologues' game. As long as we blame human nature or deficits we will not address the structural, economic, political and cultural forces that limit our freedom to control our lives and common destiny.

I’m not hopeful. Our Congress is still trying to cut funding for programs (Medicaid, food stamps, student loans) that gave the poor some modest control over their lives -- in order to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. While our President declares "We do not torture," our Vice President pressures Congress not to prohibit it, and new reports suggest that our military used white phosphorus on civilians in Fallujah – reports that we can neither confirm nor dismiss.

Americans faced with a rococo Medicare prescription drug program don’t feel they are gaining control over their lives. People trying to understand the bizarre proposals of the Patriot Act don’t see how they’ll be freer to seek sound information or more secure from terrorism. Citizens seeking news and knowledge they need to take control their personal lives and take part in their communities find most fields of information poisoned with consumerism, and planted with Ideologically Modified crops that sterilize natural honest journalism and are toxic to the discourse, debate and dissent necessary for democracy. Unsurprisingly, this week only 38% of Ohioans turned out to vote, mostly against issues or candidates.

"The Status Syndrome" suggests that there is a political dimension to health and longevity that has implications for freedom and democracy. We need to explore these ideas more fully. We need to stop thinking about how to bring people under control and start thinking about how to give them meaningful control over their lives – over their education, livelihoods, health and well-being – and how to bring them into meaningful engagement with their society.

And we need to watch our syntax.