In these days of endless drumbeats of gloom ’n doom, it can seem a fertile time for bountiful pessimism. But as this year’s Thanksgiving holiday comes to a close, perhaps we need to counterbalance that pessimism by focusing on a broader view of our current state of things.
Our biggest shortcoming is that around 9½% of our working population is not working. But 91.5% are working, even if some of them are not in jobs of their ideal preference. That is nine people of potential help to every one unemployed individual. How do we bring that potential support network to bear?
Most small businesspeople are struggling. But most big corporate/multi-national businesses are enjoying record profits. A significant portion of that profit is coming from international business, not domestic. Yet corporate CEOs complain that they cannot hire because of supposed “future business uncertainty” out of Washington rather than admitting that they are doing just fine, thank you very much, with higher productivity and more work from the employees they have already. Executive pay continues to grow comfortably; middle-class employee income has been stagnant for years. How can that profitability be spread around among those who are truly generating it – or need a new opportunity?
1½ years ago, our American-iconic automobile industry was verging on collapse. Decades of incompetency, can’t-do and non-competitive / non-innovative thinking had finally caught up to them. Today, in spite of all the rhetoric of a “government takeover,” the industry is plunging forward, creating the cars they said for years couldn’t be made, competing successfully on quality, all under long-awaited new leadership. Left alone, supposed free-enterprise capitalists almost caused 2 million industry and affiliated jobs to be lost; a supposedly “socialist” government intervention restored capitalism to a nearly dying industry. Who woulda thunk?
Two years ago John McCain “suspended” his presidential campaign (for about 3 days!) to race back to Washington to “help save our economy from collapse” at the hands of the financial / banking industry. As it turned out, McCain had no ideas to offer, and went back to campaigning. Talk of a full-scale depression with 20+% unemployment filled the airwaves. Economic indicators were all in the negative. It was a truly frightening time, with no parallel experience in the lifetimes of all Americans born after 1940. Today all these discussions have magically disappeared. Now we spend our time instead arguing about how we did/did not accomplish this return to stability, and talking endlessly while avoiding the hard steps needed to prevent a future recurrence of this catastrophic greed. But now there is no economic depression scenarios backdropping our conversations. I may not like that a “too big to fail” strategy let a lot of guilty financiers off the hook without impact on their personal finances. But I will accept that Grapes of Wrath – The Sequel has so far not had to be written.
Credit card and other consumer debt has thankfully continued to fall as people restructure their finances to something more viable. Selling one’s home takes longer than in memory, but prices are no longer continuing to drop significantly. Many home mortgages are still in jeopardy, but hundreds of thousands have been redone by the FDIC to prevent foreclosure. The shameful tragedy is that commercial banks did not follow the FDIC’s lead, even thought they could have – which had they done so would have actually improved their income statements instead of depressing their profits through foreclosures. Short-term thinking one again trumped long-term investment and the public good.
Yes, we still have our problems, issues to resolve, hurdles to overcome. And there are many different voices pitching many different proposals for “next steps.” Far too many of these ideas are ill-thought and/or self-serving for personal benefit. But somewhere in that cacophony of hollering are the thoughtful, innovative, free-thinking and substantive ideas that have the potential to lead us all to a collective better place. But those beneficial ideas need nurturing to survive, grow, and stand out from the meaningless noise. That nurturing includes our willingness to listen and discern carefully; to think unselfishly in favor of a greater good; to take a step or two backward in order to advance two or more steps forward; to be willing to live and work differently from before if we want things to be different; to separate out true thinkers and leaders from the hucksters who want our votes and/or money for their own reward.
Coming back from this deep a hole, while fighting political battles instead of creating economic solutions, with unpunished guilty persons preventing future course corrections, was never going to be quick or easy. Our short-term impatience is quite unrealistic (and immature), however justifiably frustrated we may often become. But Americans are bright and creative people – we have not yet lost that national characteristic. We are a pretty resilient people, and after a grief period we typically go about what needs to be done – and get it done. And when we have come together to act collectively in the same direction, we typically have come out of our adversity stronger than ever.
So that is our focus for this Thanksgiving. In the midst of our struggle, we have endured far worse. We have stabilized the patient, and have moved out of ER and into intensive care; almost every indicator is moving in the right direction. Progress has been achieved; more progress is on the radar. For those bright candles within the large darkness, we do give thanks. And give ourselves an interim pat on the tush.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Election 2010 - Reflections
Another bi-annual election has come and gone. One that confirms that our level of enlightened discussion about truly relevant and critical issues continues its decade-long free-fall into a new modern-day era of the Dark Ages. Regardless of one’s political views or party affiliation, we should all collectively hope that a new Age of Reason is around the corner. But such a corner frankly escapes my present view. So what did we see and hear in the many months leading up to this election? And what did we learn and take away from this election day?
In sum, the American people are confused, angry, impatient, and willing to strike at anything they can hit in order to express those feelings. It was clearly an “agin’er” election, a search for the lesser of unacceptable choices – logic or rationale be dammed. It was the third straight major swing of majority representation, with all the potential for a 4th straight swing again in 2012. It demonstrated the heightened volatility of our electorate, with a mixture of winners and losers scattered about like roadside litter. So let us set aside for the moment all the self-indulgent and self-promoting claims and hyperbole of the politicians, political consultants, and cable TV pundits, and see if we can sort out some modicum of sense from these latest results.
Clearly, this election was one that in the end mostly favored candidates with “Republican” beside their names. And for a party pronounced “all but dead” after 2008, they are entitled to be complimented for their achievement. Yet, something I have not seen before, in almost every political TV ad that I saw, candidates never identified him/herself as either Republican or Democrat. Some claimed to be “the conservative choice,” but generally it was a race between this person versus the evil / corrupt / unethical “other guy.” Given that both political parties are currently rated so low by the populace, their hiding of political affiliation shouts at a high volume. And it also thereby seriously undermines any claim to victory by the Republican Party.
Similarly, the dramatic shift in majority party was in the House, where Republicans replaced over 60 Democrats. But statistical analysis showed that most of these shifts happened in already-normally Republican districts. These were districts Obama and Democrats had stolen away in 2006 and 2008 given high dissatisfaction with Bush Republicans. Now these voters were returning to their traditional fold. This has to be a big disappointment for Democrats looking to court red states turning blue, but it is not an unnatural cycle.
Democrats also won some key, and perhaps unexpected, victories, e.g. California, Nevada and Colorado. In one recent post-election poll, only 40% of voters supported “the Republican Agenda” – whatever that may prove to be. This further reinforces the view that this was an “agin’er” election, not an endorsement of much of anyone on either side. Especially when you factor in all the Republicans who were turned out in their own primary elections and who never even made it to November. Which is why the number of new faces in Congress is significantly higher than just the winning seat count. There are now a lot of new kids on the block thumping for attention the next two years.
Which brings us to the phenomena of the Tea Party movement. A fair number of candidates claiming that label got elected, so that “movement” will have to be paid attention to and courted by some future political candidates. But such candidates also lost some key races – mainly statewide versus district races, often fielding some pretty marginal (flaky?) candidates. So the Tea Party appeal clearly has its limits, not just with the obvious liberal voters but also with a significant core of Independents. Quality of the candidates still thankfully matters. Sarah Palin’s endorsement helped some, but it was no guarantee of success. Witness her inability to oust her avowed nemesis Murkowski in her own home state of Alaska. Talent still matters too. The Republican establishment tried to corral and manage the Tea Party, but with limited success. This group will likely cause more problems for Republicans than the Democrats will!
It was not a good day for rich CEOs – not a group with much fan support these days. The three biggies (California, Connecticut) spent millions of their own money, and all three lost. Being a CEO seems less attractive today than being a politician – incumbent or otherwise. After the Wall Street excesses, being a good CEO is not much of a job qualification right now.
So with all these outcomes and the public temperament, why would anyone (besides the highly limited and untalented Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell) try to claim an endorsement for their political party or agenda? John Boehner, incoming Speaker, has so far spoken cautiously, unlike senate counterpart McConnell. Marco Rubio, the sanest and most charismatic of the “new conservatives,” spoke accurately when he said voters had not endorsed Republicanism, only given it a second chance – because they did not like what Obama and Democrats had delivered versus their expectations. It is not that the vast majority are so upset at things like “Obamacare” or other such campaign rhetoric; their anger is over the economy combined with the political process of Washington. Jobs, secure employment, loss of income, loss of homes, slippage in real income, loss of faith that tomorrow will be better – these are the electorate’s concerns, while they perceive corporate America to be doing fine with all kinds of assistance from Washington lawmakers. They wanted a new “transparency and cooperation” from our legislators, but the political deal-making they watched unfolding only affirmed how badly distasteful the legislative process has become.
Economic insecurity and unfairness are driving voters today, and a Washington that continues to be consumed with self-serving political gamesmanship while problems and needs go unaddressed may well be the foundation for another potential sweeping in 2012. People are looking for action that yields results that creates positive outcomes for them. Political distrust and lack of confidence is at an all-time high. Political party affiliation, infighting, and “business as usual” – for business and not for people – will be the likely climate of the next two years, with the prospect of little substantive accomplishment. It is a climate that people will not tolerate, because they are still looking for a representative government that they feel represents them and their goals, and they could care less about party, incumbency, or political/governmental philosophy. They are impatient for a real change in political life, and jaded about the likelihood of achieving it. Party/incumbent loyalty runs very shallow, because people are still shopping for the person(s) who can deliver on their real goals. This is the true message of 2010. The politician, or the party, who ignores that message does so at his/her own political peril.
In sum, the American people are confused, angry, impatient, and willing to strike at anything they can hit in order to express those feelings. It was clearly an “agin’er” election, a search for the lesser of unacceptable choices – logic or rationale be dammed. It was the third straight major swing of majority representation, with all the potential for a 4th straight swing again in 2012. It demonstrated the heightened volatility of our electorate, with a mixture of winners and losers scattered about like roadside litter. So let us set aside for the moment all the self-indulgent and self-promoting claims and hyperbole of the politicians, political consultants, and cable TV pundits, and see if we can sort out some modicum of sense from these latest results.
Clearly, this election was one that in the end mostly favored candidates with “Republican” beside their names. And for a party pronounced “all but dead” after 2008, they are entitled to be complimented for their achievement. Yet, something I have not seen before, in almost every political TV ad that I saw, candidates never identified him/herself as either Republican or Democrat. Some claimed to be “the conservative choice,” but generally it was a race between this person versus the evil / corrupt / unethical “other guy.” Given that both political parties are currently rated so low by the populace, their hiding of political affiliation shouts at a high volume. And it also thereby seriously undermines any claim to victory by the Republican Party.
Similarly, the dramatic shift in majority party was in the House, where Republicans replaced over 60 Democrats. But statistical analysis showed that most of these shifts happened in already-normally Republican districts. These were districts Obama and Democrats had stolen away in 2006 and 2008 given high dissatisfaction with Bush Republicans. Now these voters were returning to their traditional fold. This has to be a big disappointment for Democrats looking to court red states turning blue, but it is not an unnatural cycle.
Democrats also won some key, and perhaps unexpected, victories, e.g. California, Nevada and Colorado. In one recent post-election poll, only 40% of voters supported “the Republican Agenda” – whatever that may prove to be. This further reinforces the view that this was an “agin’er” election, not an endorsement of much of anyone on either side. Especially when you factor in all the Republicans who were turned out in their own primary elections and who never even made it to November. Which is why the number of new faces in Congress is significantly higher than just the winning seat count. There are now a lot of new kids on the block thumping for attention the next two years.
Which brings us to the phenomena of the Tea Party movement. A fair number of candidates claiming that label got elected, so that “movement” will have to be paid attention to and courted by some future political candidates. But such candidates also lost some key races – mainly statewide versus district races, often fielding some pretty marginal (flaky?) candidates. So the Tea Party appeal clearly has its limits, not just with the obvious liberal voters but also with a significant core of Independents. Quality of the candidates still thankfully matters. Sarah Palin’s endorsement helped some, but it was no guarantee of success. Witness her inability to oust her avowed nemesis Murkowski in her own home state of Alaska. Talent still matters too. The Republican establishment tried to corral and manage the Tea Party, but with limited success. This group will likely cause more problems for Republicans than the Democrats will!
It was not a good day for rich CEOs – not a group with much fan support these days. The three biggies (California, Connecticut) spent millions of their own money, and all three lost. Being a CEO seems less attractive today than being a politician – incumbent or otherwise. After the Wall Street excesses, being a good CEO is not much of a job qualification right now.
So with all these outcomes and the public temperament, why would anyone (besides the highly limited and untalented Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell) try to claim an endorsement for their political party or agenda? John Boehner, incoming Speaker, has so far spoken cautiously, unlike senate counterpart McConnell. Marco Rubio, the sanest and most charismatic of the “new conservatives,” spoke accurately when he said voters had not endorsed Republicanism, only given it a second chance – because they did not like what Obama and Democrats had delivered versus their expectations. It is not that the vast majority are so upset at things like “Obamacare” or other such campaign rhetoric; their anger is over the economy combined with the political process of Washington. Jobs, secure employment, loss of income, loss of homes, slippage in real income, loss of faith that tomorrow will be better – these are the electorate’s concerns, while they perceive corporate America to be doing fine with all kinds of assistance from Washington lawmakers. They wanted a new “transparency and cooperation” from our legislators, but the political deal-making they watched unfolding only affirmed how badly distasteful the legislative process has become.
Economic insecurity and unfairness are driving voters today, and a Washington that continues to be consumed with self-serving political gamesmanship while problems and needs go unaddressed may well be the foundation for another potential sweeping in 2012. People are looking for action that yields results that creates positive outcomes for them. Political distrust and lack of confidence is at an all-time high. Political party affiliation, infighting, and “business as usual” – for business and not for people – will be the likely climate of the next two years, with the prospect of little substantive accomplishment. It is a climate that people will not tolerate, because they are still looking for a representative government that they feel represents them and their goals, and they could care less about party, incumbency, or political/governmental philosophy. They are impatient for a real change in political life, and jaded about the likelihood of achieving it. Party/incumbent loyalty runs very shallow, because people are still shopping for the person(s) who can deliver on their real goals. This is the true message of 2010. The politician, or the party, who ignores that message does so at his/her own political peril.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Election 2010
Next Tuesday is yet another Congressional election day. The high energy and drama of the 2008 election seem so long ago. This year just seems like loud noise and often incoherent yelling from a vocal minority, and a quiet muted frustration from a disillusioned majority. It is not an easy year to exercise our civic duty.
Personally, I cannot seem to find any Republican that I can put an “X” next to on the ballot (with the possible exception of the two senators from Maine; but I believe that neither of them is up for reelection, and I do not live in Maine anyway). I just cannot vote an endorsement for a political strategy that says 1) “say anything” without regard to accuracy or consistency from one day to the next, and 2) vote against everything, whether good for the country or were your own ideas now disregarded, in order to deprive the Democrats of any legislative success. At a critical time when this country needs leadership and solutions to our current morass, such thumbing your nose at the electorate for purely personal political gain is inexcusable and intolerable. My simple question is ... why in the world would I vote for or trust the people/party who drove us to this current ruin, and whose only proclaimed program now is to take us back to those very same policies?
The Democrats, on the other hand, had no lack of ideas and agenda, fueled by being out of power these past years. What they did lack was the ability to manage that agenda. They took on milestone legislation and major economic issues – and somehow managed to come out on the rhetorical defensive, looking totally incompetent in their ability to focus and achieve a core agenda. There were a half-dozen critical “to dos” for health care; instead, they expanded that to a 2000 page bill seemingly filled with every health care idea ever thought about. That overreach almost sunk the topic entirely. They passed an economic stimulus bill that was inadequate to the need, and then never adequately defined the successes it achieved (leaving the Republicans to successfully tag it as a failure). They never developed a credible argument for why borrowing our way out of our recession made sense (which it does), even though smart CEOs are doing exactly the same thing for their companies where in similar straits. You borrow money when you need it (not when you don’t), and you spend it on investments not operating expense, which is exactly why the business community is complaining now about the unavailability of loan money to finance their growth. (Borrowing for day-to-day operating expense is still a stupid idea, for government and businesses.)
Democrats passed a badly needed financial reform bill. It restored regulation and oversight that had stabilized us for 60 years – until dismantled under 25 years of Republican rule, thereby leading us to this current financial devastation. But then they failed to nail the Republicans who, as expected, opposed it even though this should have been THE connecting issue with the American public. And they have inexplicably continued the Bush strategy of trying to fix the financial industry through the banks and investment companies instead of going around them and working directly with the financially injured citizens. The unsurprising result is that the banks and financial companies have emerged virtually unscathed and richer than ever, while the average Joes and Josephines are still hurting and losing ground.
Politically , Republicans continue to demonstrate that they are far better at winning the sound bite battles, and keeping all their people on board the same political train. Conversely, Democrats squandered their both-houses-and-president monopoly and sent out a dizzying cacophony of messages. Republicans can reduce any problem issue, no matter how complex, to a simplified 1 sentence message easily understood by the public, but they have no program to offer up behind it except the time-worn and disproven “cut taxes” call without paying for it – while claiming to be against deficit spending. (Only Republicans could get away with proclaiming such a paradoxical position with a straight face!) Conversely, Democrats can expand any problem issue to an exhausting paragraph incomprehensible to virtually anyone except an obscure technical policy wonk, with more programmatic solutions than anybody could ever want – a classic “killing the ant with a sledgehammer” approach.
Further disrupting all this confusion is the emergence of the Tea Party movement. What started as a legitimate grass roots expression of justifiable exasperation at Washington’s incompetence and ineffectiveness morphed into a vehicle for bad and irrational behavior. Betraying its constituent-led origins, it has become a marching tool for Fox News, secret donors and backroom wheeler-dealers (a la Karl Rove). It was given voice by self-centered promoters like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Jim DeMint. It smartly magnified its perceived power by supporting fringe candidates in Republican primaries in small populated districts where their influence could overwhelm “establishment” Republican candidates. The result has been a slew of embarrassing and uninformed candidates exemplified by Sharon Engle (the Nevada kook) and Christine O’Donnell (the New Jersey witch-wanna-be) along with other such types. These are “against everything” candidates guided by colossal constitutional ignorance who personify how ridiculously low our standards for political qualifications have become. They have polarized the Republican Party even further to the extreme right (could any of us thought that possible?), and driven out some competent people into the “Independent” ranks as “ideologically impure.” If they win anything (questionable), they are likely to be as problematic to Republican party leadership as the “Blue Dog” Democrats are to their party leaders. Besides all the unwarranted news they generate for the media, until they win some significant and contested positions in the general election they still have no credibility. But every election year the media always look for “the underdog” story and give it excessive weight, and this year it’s the Tea Party as underdog.
Running in parallel to the candidates elections are an exhausting number of relevant peripheral currents, such as:
• The collapse of the U.S. Senate as an effective institution, drowning in its own rules of (non-) order, a 60 vote “super-majority” required to do anything in spite of our long-standing legislative principle of “majority rules,” action on any topic subject to the whim of any one senator to put the item “on hold,” and the mere threat of a filibuster sufficient to prevent a vote. Harry Reed needs to be reelected, if for no other reason to keep kooky Sharon Engle out of the Senate, but he is clearly not up to the job of Majority Leader.
• President Obama has a substantial list of successes to point to, but doesn’t seem able to point to them. The economy is no longer in doomsday; our receivership of the auto industry is paying visible dividends in economic stability and providing badly-needed new corporate direction; financial wildcatting has been somewhat reined in; health care made huge progress despite the bad distortion of it; foreign relations are significantly better than in a decade. Other worthwhile initiatives are at least in the pipeline. But however well-intended, Obama abdicated leadership by leaving legislation to be defined and thereby run amuck by Congress (“damn it, you’re the President, not a senator anymore!”), and his vaunted speaking voice escaped him. A clear, focused message on core directions that accurately reflects the mood of the people has been nowhere visible. Frankly, Obama’s first act on Wednesday, November 3rd, should be to fire his entire Communications Office – who seem to consistently live in a fog of surprise at the events around them they did not see coming – and get some competent help who can reconnect his voice with the people.
• Campaign dollars are out of control, projecting the most expensive election in history. This is thanks in no small part to the Supreme’s Court’s preposterous decision that “corporations are people, too” and thereby entitled to freedom of speech. Meg Whitman has already spent $140 million of her own money to win California’s governor race. We can only hope that she, like others, will find that not only can “money not buy you love,” but it can’t necessarily buy political office either.
• If you really want some amusement, look no further than the Democratic candidates to replace Republican senators in South Carolina and North Carolina. The former is a candidate-no-one-ever-heard-of that seems like a walking Tina Fey/Saturday Night Live comedy farce; the latter seems like she just woke up a couple of weeks ago and decided “Maybe I should actually campaign for this office!” Or look at the Alaska senate race where Sarah Palin’s very visible personal grudge campaign against Lisa Murkowski, the former-Republican-now-independent incumbent, is reducing Tea Party candidate Joe Miller to a back seat; it is a political form of a Desperate Housewives soap opera drama.
• Left-wing Democrats are complaining because results these past two years “did not go far enough?” Folks, get off the sidelines, and get real. A lot went your way; why do you think the right wing is now so vocal – because you failed? Do you not get that you won more than many thought possible to win? Even Ted Kennedy, an undisputed champion of universal health care, ultimately admitted he was wrong not to take up President Nixon on his health care proposals in the 1970s “just because they didn’t go far enough.”
So what is a concerned citizen supposed to do in this election? The litany of complaints against the current state of our national government could go on unendingly. The anger of our citizens is entirely justified, even if our specific complaints may differ. Let us trust no politician who promises to “cut spending / reduce the government / balance the budget” without telling us exactly where s/he would cut so we can determine if we really do agree with their easy rhetoric. And let us similarly trust no politician who promises that government can right all wrongs, and can protect us from all our fears and calamities.
Not voting is an abdication of civic responsibility, even if we are hesitant to give the appearance of endorsement to the winners. In the end, we need vote for pussycats even if for no other reason than to keep the mice at bay. General expectations are that 2011-2012 will be a non-event for Congressional accomplishments, as gridlock completely takes over and Republican presidential wanna-bes come out swinging for 2012. So we need to be ready, to find our own real voice, and to figure out the actions that we are called upon to take to restore honor, direction, integrity and promise to this great country. Enough is enough of this political gamesmanship at our expense. As has been said, in the end we ultimately get only the government that we work for and deserve. What shall that be?
Personally, I cannot seem to find any Republican that I can put an “X” next to on the ballot (with the possible exception of the two senators from Maine; but I believe that neither of them is up for reelection, and I do not live in Maine anyway). I just cannot vote an endorsement for a political strategy that says 1) “say anything” without regard to accuracy or consistency from one day to the next, and 2) vote against everything, whether good for the country or were your own ideas now disregarded, in order to deprive the Democrats of any legislative success. At a critical time when this country needs leadership and solutions to our current morass, such thumbing your nose at the electorate for purely personal political gain is inexcusable and intolerable. My simple question is ... why in the world would I vote for or trust the people/party who drove us to this current ruin, and whose only proclaimed program now is to take us back to those very same policies?
The Democrats, on the other hand, had no lack of ideas and agenda, fueled by being out of power these past years. What they did lack was the ability to manage that agenda. They took on milestone legislation and major economic issues – and somehow managed to come out on the rhetorical defensive, looking totally incompetent in their ability to focus and achieve a core agenda. There were a half-dozen critical “to dos” for health care; instead, they expanded that to a 2000 page bill seemingly filled with every health care idea ever thought about. That overreach almost sunk the topic entirely. They passed an economic stimulus bill that was inadequate to the need, and then never adequately defined the successes it achieved (leaving the Republicans to successfully tag it as a failure). They never developed a credible argument for why borrowing our way out of our recession made sense (which it does), even though smart CEOs are doing exactly the same thing for their companies where in similar straits. You borrow money when you need it (not when you don’t), and you spend it on investments not operating expense, which is exactly why the business community is complaining now about the unavailability of loan money to finance their growth. (Borrowing for day-to-day operating expense is still a stupid idea, for government and businesses.)
Democrats passed a badly needed financial reform bill. It restored regulation and oversight that had stabilized us for 60 years – until dismantled under 25 years of Republican rule, thereby leading us to this current financial devastation. But then they failed to nail the Republicans who, as expected, opposed it even though this should have been THE connecting issue with the American public. And they have inexplicably continued the Bush strategy of trying to fix the financial industry through the banks and investment companies instead of going around them and working directly with the financially injured citizens. The unsurprising result is that the banks and financial companies have emerged virtually unscathed and richer than ever, while the average Joes and Josephines are still hurting and losing ground.
Politically , Republicans continue to demonstrate that they are far better at winning the sound bite battles, and keeping all their people on board the same political train. Conversely, Democrats squandered their both-houses-and-president monopoly and sent out a dizzying cacophony of messages. Republicans can reduce any problem issue, no matter how complex, to a simplified 1 sentence message easily understood by the public, but they have no program to offer up behind it except the time-worn and disproven “cut taxes” call without paying for it – while claiming to be against deficit spending. (Only Republicans could get away with proclaiming such a paradoxical position with a straight face!) Conversely, Democrats can expand any problem issue to an exhausting paragraph incomprehensible to virtually anyone except an obscure technical policy wonk, with more programmatic solutions than anybody could ever want – a classic “killing the ant with a sledgehammer” approach.
Further disrupting all this confusion is the emergence of the Tea Party movement. What started as a legitimate grass roots expression of justifiable exasperation at Washington’s incompetence and ineffectiveness morphed into a vehicle for bad and irrational behavior. Betraying its constituent-led origins, it has become a marching tool for Fox News, secret donors and backroom wheeler-dealers (a la Karl Rove). It was given voice by self-centered promoters like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Jim DeMint. It smartly magnified its perceived power by supporting fringe candidates in Republican primaries in small populated districts where their influence could overwhelm “establishment” Republican candidates. The result has been a slew of embarrassing and uninformed candidates exemplified by Sharon Engle (the Nevada kook) and Christine O’Donnell (the New Jersey witch-wanna-be) along with other such types. These are “against everything” candidates guided by colossal constitutional ignorance who personify how ridiculously low our standards for political qualifications have become. They have polarized the Republican Party even further to the extreme right (could any of us thought that possible?), and driven out some competent people into the “Independent” ranks as “ideologically impure.” If they win anything (questionable), they are likely to be as problematic to Republican party leadership as the “Blue Dog” Democrats are to their party leaders. Besides all the unwarranted news they generate for the media, until they win some significant and contested positions in the general election they still have no credibility. But every election year the media always look for “the underdog” story and give it excessive weight, and this year it’s the Tea Party as underdog.
Running in parallel to the candidates elections are an exhausting number of relevant peripheral currents, such as:
• The collapse of the U.S. Senate as an effective institution, drowning in its own rules of (non-) order, a 60 vote “super-majority” required to do anything in spite of our long-standing legislative principle of “majority rules,” action on any topic subject to the whim of any one senator to put the item “on hold,” and the mere threat of a filibuster sufficient to prevent a vote. Harry Reed needs to be reelected, if for no other reason to keep kooky Sharon Engle out of the Senate, but he is clearly not up to the job of Majority Leader.
• President Obama has a substantial list of successes to point to, but doesn’t seem able to point to them. The economy is no longer in doomsday; our receivership of the auto industry is paying visible dividends in economic stability and providing badly-needed new corporate direction; financial wildcatting has been somewhat reined in; health care made huge progress despite the bad distortion of it; foreign relations are significantly better than in a decade. Other worthwhile initiatives are at least in the pipeline. But however well-intended, Obama abdicated leadership by leaving legislation to be defined and thereby run amuck by Congress (“damn it, you’re the President, not a senator anymore!”), and his vaunted speaking voice escaped him. A clear, focused message on core directions that accurately reflects the mood of the people has been nowhere visible. Frankly, Obama’s first act on Wednesday, November 3rd, should be to fire his entire Communications Office – who seem to consistently live in a fog of surprise at the events around them they did not see coming – and get some competent help who can reconnect his voice with the people.
• Campaign dollars are out of control, projecting the most expensive election in history. This is thanks in no small part to the Supreme’s Court’s preposterous decision that “corporations are people, too” and thereby entitled to freedom of speech. Meg Whitman has already spent $140 million of her own money to win California’s governor race. We can only hope that she, like others, will find that not only can “money not buy you love,” but it can’t necessarily buy political office either.
• If you really want some amusement, look no further than the Democratic candidates to replace Republican senators in South Carolina and North Carolina. The former is a candidate-no-one-ever-heard-of that seems like a walking Tina Fey/Saturday Night Live comedy farce; the latter seems like she just woke up a couple of weeks ago and decided “Maybe I should actually campaign for this office!” Or look at the Alaska senate race where Sarah Palin’s very visible personal grudge campaign against Lisa Murkowski, the former-Republican-now-independent incumbent, is reducing Tea Party candidate Joe Miller to a back seat; it is a political form of a Desperate Housewives soap opera drama.
• Left-wing Democrats are complaining because results these past two years “did not go far enough?” Folks, get off the sidelines, and get real. A lot went your way; why do you think the right wing is now so vocal – because you failed? Do you not get that you won more than many thought possible to win? Even Ted Kennedy, an undisputed champion of universal health care, ultimately admitted he was wrong not to take up President Nixon on his health care proposals in the 1970s “just because they didn’t go far enough.”
So what is a concerned citizen supposed to do in this election? The litany of complaints against the current state of our national government could go on unendingly. The anger of our citizens is entirely justified, even if our specific complaints may differ. Let us trust no politician who promises to “cut spending / reduce the government / balance the budget” without telling us exactly where s/he would cut so we can determine if we really do agree with their easy rhetoric. And let us similarly trust no politician who promises that government can right all wrongs, and can protect us from all our fears and calamities.
Not voting is an abdication of civic responsibility, even if we are hesitant to give the appearance of endorsement to the winners. In the end, we need vote for pussycats even if for no other reason than to keep the mice at bay. General expectations are that 2011-2012 will be a non-event for Congressional accomplishments, as gridlock completely takes over and Republican presidential wanna-bes come out swinging for 2012. So we need to be ready, to find our own real voice, and to figure out the actions that we are called upon to take to restore honor, direction, integrity and promise to this great country. Enough is enough of this political gamesmanship at our expense. As has been said, in the end we ultimately get only the government that we work for and deserve. What shall that be?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pertinent News Stories
Did you happen to pick up on the following news stories?
1. The pastor of the Philadelphia Third Presbyterian Church gave a sermon calling for “Christian voters” to join forces to keep “pagans, Muslims, and other non-Christians” (including Deists and Unitarians) from political office. He went on to say “every ruler should be an avowed and sincere friend of Christianity.”
In response to this call, the President wrote that “among the greatest blessings secured to us under our Constitution is the liberty of worshipping God as our conscience dictates – or not.” Even a special Congressional subcommittee thereafter responded that “It is not the legitimate province [of Congress] to determine which religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution.”
2. A quiet but highly respected Senator from a well-known political family in Louisiana spoke on the senate floor about the extreme level of partisan acrimony that we see in the political environment. Speaking about the public debate, he pertinently observed that “I think the discussion may be turned to useful purposes. It may, by the interchange of opinion, increase our own information on all of the important points which have been examined, while, not being called on for a vote, we may weigh them at leisure, and come to a conclusion, without being influenced by the warmth of the debate… However, the cost of partisanship for partisanship’s sake [is] too high for a free society to pay… The spirit [of zealotry] of which I speak creates imaginary and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue – denies every virtue to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs … mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of heaven, war, pestilence, and famine as preferable alternatives to party defeat; blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friend as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing.
I am no censor of the conduct of others: it is sufficient for me to watch over my own. The wisdom of gentlemen must be their guide in the sentiments they entertain, and their discretion in the language in which they utter them. No doubt they think the occasion calls for the warmth they have shown, but of this people must judge … There are legitimate and effectual means to correct any palpable infraction of our Constitution. Let the cry of constitutional oppression be justly raised within these walls, and it will be heard abroad – it will be examined. The people are intelligent, they people are just, and in time these characteristics must have an effect on their representatives.”
3. A leading senator from Kentucky proposed that the President declare a national day of prayer and fasting to “seek divine relief” from a series of recent disasters. The President responded saying that, while he too believed in “the efficacy of prayer,” it was his determination to “decline the appointment of any mode of religious activity. I could not do otherwise without transcending those limits which are prescribed by the Constitution for the president, and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the Government … I deem it my duty to preserve this separation and to abstain from any act which may tend to an amalgamation perilous to both church and state.”
4. Accusations that the President was creating and enacting near-dictatorial powers prompted a number of strong speeches. The same senator from Kentucky claimed that “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending towards a total concentration of the pure republican character of the Government, and to the concentration of all power in the hands of one man. [In just a few years] the government will have been transformed into an elective monarchy – the worst of all forms of government.” A well-known senator from South Carolina proclaimed that, “We have arrived at a fearful crisis. Things cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love their country – who have affection for their offspring, or who have any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Confidence is daily withdrawing from the General Government. Alienation is hourly going on. These will necessarily create a state of things inimical to the existence of our institutions, and, if not arrested, convulsions must follow, and then comes dissolution or despotism, when a thick cloud will be thrown over the cause of liberty and the future prospects of our country.” And finally, from a senator from Massachusetts: “There never before was a moment in which any President would have been tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power.” All pretty strong words against the sitting President.
Did you miss these news stories? Probably yes, because they happened 170 years ago in the early 1830s. The President was Andrew Jackson, the first president not a part of the generation of founding fathers, the first president from the then-West (Tennessee), and the first president to be an avowed proponent of “the common man.” The Philadelphia pastor was the Reverend Ezra Stiles Ely; the Louisiana senator was Edward Livingston; the Kentucky senator was Henry Clay; the South Carolina senator was John Calhoun; and the Massachusetts senator was Daniel Webster. All political icons from the 1st half of the 19th century.
The point of this looking back is that America has been down the road of intemperate political arguing many times before. As discouraging as the current economic, social and political environment is, it is not new. It is more of the continuing give-and-take that has always defined our on-going experiment in representative government. The arguments and ambiguity about religion in political life, the power of the central government versus state governments, and the liberties to which we are entitled, all started at our original Constitutional Convention. They have continually risen and fallen for two centuries. Though we have lurched right, then left, then back again, somehow we have always managed to ultimately settle back into our national center.
We have lost many opportunities over the years, and we have much to be ashamed of in our country’s conduct; these are frequent omissions in our schools’ history textbooks. But through it all we remain a beacon of hope, envy, accomplishment and aspiration for many, and – if we can forgo our flashes of arrogance – better than most alternative forms of government that have been tried before. So in spite of our faults and clumsiness, we have no choice but to ignore the self-serving demagogues so ever-present today, offer up our best ideas, stay involved, and keep on plugging to try to make it all work. In essence, it is simply about continually working to see if diverse human beings can in fact coexist and work successfully with each other. The jury is still out on this, but there is no choice but to keep trying. And to remain hopeful.
(Historical notes principally from “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” by Jon Meacham)
1. The pastor of the Philadelphia Third Presbyterian Church gave a sermon calling for “Christian voters” to join forces to keep “pagans, Muslims, and other non-Christians” (including Deists and Unitarians) from political office. He went on to say “every ruler should be an avowed and sincere friend of Christianity.”
In response to this call, the President wrote that “among the greatest blessings secured to us under our Constitution is the liberty of worshipping God as our conscience dictates – or not.” Even a special Congressional subcommittee thereafter responded that “It is not the legitimate province [of Congress] to determine which religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution.”
2. A quiet but highly respected Senator from a well-known political family in Louisiana spoke on the senate floor about the extreme level of partisan acrimony that we see in the political environment. Speaking about the public debate, he pertinently observed that “I think the discussion may be turned to useful purposes. It may, by the interchange of opinion, increase our own information on all of the important points which have been examined, while, not being called on for a vote, we may weigh them at leisure, and come to a conclusion, without being influenced by the warmth of the debate… However, the cost of partisanship for partisanship’s sake [is] too high for a free society to pay… The spirit [of zealotry] of which I speak creates imaginary and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue – denies every virtue to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs … mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of heaven, war, pestilence, and famine as preferable alternatives to party defeat; blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friend as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing.
I am no censor of the conduct of others: it is sufficient for me to watch over my own. The wisdom of gentlemen must be their guide in the sentiments they entertain, and their discretion in the language in which they utter them. No doubt they think the occasion calls for the warmth they have shown, but of this people must judge … There are legitimate and effectual means to correct any palpable infraction of our Constitution. Let the cry of constitutional oppression be justly raised within these walls, and it will be heard abroad – it will be examined. The people are intelligent, they people are just, and in time these characteristics must have an effect on their representatives.”
3. A leading senator from Kentucky proposed that the President declare a national day of prayer and fasting to “seek divine relief” from a series of recent disasters. The President responded saying that, while he too believed in “the efficacy of prayer,” it was his determination to “decline the appointment of any mode of religious activity. I could not do otherwise without transcending those limits which are prescribed by the Constitution for the president, and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the Government … I deem it my duty to preserve this separation and to abstain from any act which may tend to an amalgamation perilous to both church and state.”
4. Accusations that the President was creating and enacting near-dictatorial powers prompted a number of strong speeches. The same senator from Kentucky claimed that “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending towards a total concentration of the pure republican character of the Government, and to the concentration of all power in the hands of one man. [In just a few years] the government will have been transformed into an elective monarchy – the worst of all forms of government.” A well-known senator from South Carolina proclaimed that, “We have arrived at a fearful crisis. Things cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love their country – who have affection for their offspring, or who have any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Confidence is daily withdrawing from the General Government. Alienation is hourly going on. These will necessarily create a state of things inimical to the existence of our institutions, and, if not arrested, convulsions must follow, and then comes dissolution or despotism, when a thick cloud will be thrown over the cause of liberty and the future prospects of our country.” And finally, from a senator from Massachusetts: “There never before was a moment in which any President would have been tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power.” All pretty strong words against the sitting President.
Did you miss these news stories? Probably yes, because they happened 170 years ago in the early 1830s. The President was Andrew Jackson, the first president not a part of the generation of founding fathers, the first president from the then-West (Tennessee), and the first president to be an avowed proponent of “the common man.” The Philadelphia pastor was the Reverend Ezra Stiles Ely; the Louisiana senator was Edward Livingston; the Kentucky senator was Henry Clay; the South Carolina senator was John Calhoun; and the Massachusetts senator was Daniel Webster. All political icons from the 1st half of the 19th century.
The point of this looking back is that America has been down the road of intemperate political arguing many times before. As discouraging as the current economic, social and political environment is, it is not new. It is more of the continuing give-and-take that has always defined our on-going experiment in representative government. The arguments and ambiguity about religion in political life, the power of the central government versus state governments, and the liberties to which we are entitled, all started at our original Constitutional Convention. They have continually risen and fallen for two centuries. Though we have lurched right, then left, then back again, somehow we have always managed to ultimately settle back into our national center.
We have lost many opportunities over the years, and we have much to be ashamed of in our country’s conduct; these are frequent omissions in our schools’ history textbooks. But through it all we remain a beacon of hope, envy, accomplishment and aspiration for many, and – if we can forgo our flashes of arrogance – better than most alternative forms of government that have been tried before. So in spite of our faults and clumsiness, we have no choice but to ignore the self-serving demagogues so ever-present today, offer up our best ideas, stay involved, and keep on plugging to try to make it all work. In essence, it is simply about continually working to see if diverse human beings can in fact coexist and work successfully with each other. The jury is still out on this, but there is no choice but to keep trying. And to remain hopeful.
(Historical notes principally from “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” by Jon Meacham)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
15 Minutes Too Much
In the late 1960s, the pop artist Andy Warhol famously predicted that, in the future, everyone would have their own 15 minutes of personal fame. It seemed like a ridiculous remark at the time. But the 1960s were a very different time than today. Now we have the then-unforeseen environment of the internet, where virtually anyone can publish virtually any statement regardless of veracity or discernment and then claim it as absolute truth; we now have 24-hour / 365-day news delivery with airtime and page space that must be continuously filled and resupplied. Taken together, these two forces conspire to fulfill Warhol’s prediction by offering up any space-filling “news” as items supposedly of pertinence to us. And thereby, they give these news sources their newly found 15 minutes of fame, even though they are likely of no real consequence to the pursuit of my life.
The latest example of this is the disturbing case of one Terry Jones. Mr. Jones was apparently the pastor of a small church in Germany until he was released due to “financial improprieties.” He subsequently made his way to Florida where he founded a small church in a vacant mall space, with a congregation of less than 50 people. In the weeks leading up to the next forthcoming anniversary of the 9-11 destruction in New York City, Mr. Jones came up with the reprehensible idea to burn copies of the Qur’an as a way to show his hatred of all things Islam, supposedly because of what 19 Muslims did on September 11, 2001.
We have experienced book burnings in America before, as well as its more subtle but just as sinister cousins of book censorship and book bannings. Any of these various forms of negative expression are bad enough, but when they are specifically targeted towards insulting or restricting whole groups of people, they become even more of an assault on our society of free expression and freedom to worship.
Yet in the spirit of our times, attention and media space goes not to the substantive but to the outrageous. Thereby a previously (and deservedly) unknown player with a base audience of less than 50 people is suddenly the lead news headline of the day. Ultimately, a person who should be of no consequence to me whatsoever is generating conversation and attention from religious, political and military leaders across the country and world. No matter that people across all philosophical persuasions were universally condemning this proposed book burning as an undeserved and improper religious affront to one specific religious group as well as a tangible threat to American soldiers operating in Muslim countries. Through all of this noise the only question I found myself able to ask was – WHY are we even talking about this obviously self-promoting individual, versus consigning him to the set of right-wing or left-wing fringe people who have always existed in America and who should at most be a mere footnote buried on page 20 of the daily news, quickly dismissed and permanently forgotten about.
In the desperate rush for constant sensational headlines, these are now the kind of people who show up on our TV screens. Two years ago we had to endure day after day of “Joe the Plumber” and his nonsensical views on the economy and our presidential choice. Joe was an out-of-work plumber who wanted to buy a plumbing business but couldn’t afford it, who turned out to not be a licensed plumber after all and had no economic credibility at all. Yet there he was at one McCain rally after another, TV microphones stuck in his face, basking in his sudden fame, a political know-nothing designated by the media to speak “for the people.” The press ate it up as a “man in the street” human interest story; yet my opinion of the value of modern news reporting went down every time Joe’s image or words appeared in front of me. It was classic “celebrity over substance” reporting. Good old Joe had far more than his 15 minutes of fame due, and thankfully he has now gone on and disappeared from view.
I expect that it will so continue. So much noise coming our way built upon so little thought. And some ill-deserving people are getting way more than the 15 minutes allotted to them because they are very good at moving from one outrageous headline to the next. “Media savvy” is seen as a greater skill than being “smart people.” I would frankly put Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Newt Gingrich all in that category of being way beyond their 15 minutes due. I say that not because I differ from most of their political views, but because there is absolutely no substance or real ideas coming from them. They just provide emotional clichés designed to get attention for its own sake without having to actually DO anything about their headlines of complaints. (Newt used to be a more reasonable big-picture thinker offering substantive ideas, but he has thrown that away in a willingness to now become another one of those who will say anything to get attention to his/her wanna-be presidential candidacy.) It is very easy to throw bricks through windows and thereby create self-focused publicity through destructive words and actions. Especially when you then disclaim any responsibility for unwanted actions that may subsequently ensue. It is a lot harder and slower to take those same bricks and build solid structures (of solutions) that will stand strong and have lasting benefits. It is to the bricklayers that we need to give our attention, not the brick throwers.
It is said that we ultimately get the government we deserve. I believe we also ultimately get the news and information that we deserve and demand. If we fill our days and our minds paying attention to those who deserve only passing interest (if any at all) from us, how will that leave us time and energy to listen to those who can truly inspire, inform and lead us to better and more positive outcomes?
The latest example of this is the disturbing case of one Terry Jones. Mr. Jones was apparently the pastor of a small church in Germany until he was released due to “financial improprieties.” He subsequently made his way to Florida where he founded a small church in a vacant mall space, with a congregation of less than 50 people. In the weeks leading up to the next forthcoming anniversary of the 9-11 destruction in New York City, Mr. Jones came up with the reprehensible idea to burn copies of the Qur’an as a way to show his hatred of all things Islam, supposedly because of what 19 Muslims did on September 11, 2001.
We have experienced book burnings in America before, as well as its more subtle but just as sinister cousins of book censorship and book bannings. Any of these various forms of negative expression are bad enough, but when they are specifically targeted towards insulting or restricting whole groups of people, they become even more of an assault on our society of free expression and freedom to worship.
Yet in the spirit of our times, attention and media space goes not to the substantive but to the outrageous. Thereby a previously (and deservedly) unknown player with a base audience of less than 50 people is suddenly the lead news headline of the day. Ultimately, a person who should be of no consequence to me whatsoever is generating conversation and attention from religious, political and military leaders across the country and world. No matter that people across all philosophical persuasions were universally condemning this proposed book burning as an undeserved and improper religious affront to one specific religious group as well as a tangible threat to American soldiers operating in Muslim countries. Through all of this noise the only question I found myself able to ask was – WHY are we even talking about this obviously self-promoting individual, versus consigning him to the set of right-wing or left-wing fringe people who have always existed in America and who should at most be a mere footnote buried on page 20 of the daily news, quickly dismissed and permanently forgotten about.
In the desperate rush for constant sensational headlines, these are now the kind of people who show up on our TV screens. Two years ago we had to endure day after day of “Joe the Plumber” and his nonsensical views on the economy and our presidential choice. Joe was an out-of-work plumber who wanted to buy a plumbing business but couldn’t afford it, who turned out to not be a licensed plumber after all and had no economic credibility at all. Yet there he was at one McCain rally after another, TV microphones stuck in his face, basking in his sudden fame, a political know-nothing designated by the media to speak “for the people.” The press ate it up as a “man in the street” human interest story; yet my opinion of the value of modern news reporting went down every time Joe’s image or words appeared in front of me. It was classic “celebrity over substance” reporting. Good old Joe had far more than his 15 minutes of fame due, and thankfully he has now gone on and disappeared from view.
I expect that it will so continue. So much noise coming our way built upon so little thought. And some ill-deserving people are getting way more than the 15 minutes allotted to them because they are very good at moving from one outrageous headline to the next. “Media savvy” is seen as a greater skill than being “smart people.” I would frankly put Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Newt Gingrich all in that category of being way beyond their 15 minutes due. I say that not because I differ from most of their political views, but because there is absolutely no substance or real ideas coming from them. They just provide emotional clichés designed to get attention for its own sake without having to actually DO anything about their headlines of complaints. (Newt used to be a more reasonable big-picture thinker offering substantive ideas, but he has thrown that away in a willingness to now become another one of those who will say anything to get attention to his/her wanna-be presidential candidacy.) It is very easy to throw bricks through windows and thereby create self-focused publicity through destructive words and actions. Especially when you then disclaim any responsibility for unwanted actions that may subsequently ensue. It is a lot harder and slower to take those same bricks and build solid structures (of solutions) that will stand strong and have lasting benefits. It is to the bricklayers that we need to give our attention, not the brick throwers.
It is said that we ultimately get the government we deserve. I believe we also ultimately get the news and information that we deserve and demand. If we fill our days and our minds paying attention to those who deserve only passing interest (if any at all) from us, how will that leave us time and energy to listen to those who can truly inspire, inform and lead us to better and more positive outcomes?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Some Voices From America
.
Some quotes to note, all of which happened in one week:
“Barack Obama is the worst president in history.”
(Ben Quayle, son of the former vice president; another politician willing to say anything some people want to hear in order to get elected, and claiming history for validation while his words demonstrate he has no idea about history. President Warren Harding, anyone?)
+
“I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful.”
(Laura Schlessinger, radio commentator, electing to quit her show the end of this year after she used the word “nigger” 11 times during a recent call. It would appear that she was able to say exactly what she wanted, no matter how distasteful. So why is she complaining? Perhaps because free speech does not mean freedom from accountability to others for what we say?)
+
“Islam is a religion of hatred, it’s a religion of war.”
(Franklin Graham, evangelist; a preacher who has obviously never read the Qur’an and has selective memory about history’s Christian warriors and conquerors, and then – incomprehensibly to many of us – he complains because he was not invited to a Pentagon-sponsored military interfaith prayer service.)
+
“Nazis don’t have a right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”
(Newt Gingrich, a presidential-wanna-be who is also willing to say whatever his constituency wants to hear, regarding the proposed Muslim community center nearby the 9-11 Twin Towers site; no, Newt, the Nazi analogy works only if al-Qaeda was trying to put up a sign of some kind, not Muslims; for everyday Germans to build a memorial to Jewish holocaust victims could potentially be appropriate and healing indeed.)
*****
+
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here…”
(Michael Bloomburg, Mayor of New York City, on the proposal to build the Muslim center and the ensuing outcry that has arisen.)
+
“I prefer blueberry.”
(Senator Carl Levin, good-naturedly responding to a woman who hit him in the face with an apple pie over a disagreement on foreign policy; is this how some think we should now conduct our political disagreements?)
+
“These are very tough times for America with many of our people hurting, there is no doubt about it. But we will dig our way out of it once again, just as we always have – IF people would just stop yelling at each other for 30 minutes.”
(Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion host, at a recent concert.)
*****
So much anger, so much hatred in our public conversation today. Yet still some voices of calm reason striving to be heard. Regardless of our philosophical differences, whose voices should we be listening to these days? The voices of anger, division and self-serving interests? Or the voices of inclusion, good will towards others, and the serving of the pubic interests?
In the election upcoming this fall, perhaps we should have less concerns about what a particular politician says, or claims to think, or his/her governmental / economic philosophies. Perhaps instead we might spend more time thinking about what we believe inside ourselves – about our own character and beliefs, about fairness towards all, about listening and speaking respectfully to our differences. Negative speech inevitably leads to negative outcomes. In the difficult times in which we now live, we need to speak and act towards positive outcomes, appealing not to the worst in us, but to the best in us. Positively.
Some quotes to note, all of which happened in one week:
“Barack Obama is the worst president in history.”
(Ben Quayle, son of the former vice president; another politician willing to say anything some people want to hear in order to get elected, and claiming history for validation while his words demonstrate he has no idea about history. President Warren Harding, anyone?)
+
“I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful.”
(Laura Schlessinger, radio commentator, electing to quit her show the end of this year after she used the word “nigger” 11 times during a recent call. It would appear that she was able to say exactly what she wanted, no matter how distasteful. So why is she complaining? Perhaps because free speech does not mean freedom from accountability to others for what we say?)
+
“Islam is a religion of hatred, it’s a religion of war.”
(Franklin Graham, evangelist; a preacher who has obviously never read the Qur’an and has selective memory about history’s Christian warriors and conquerors, and then – incomprehensibly to many of us – he complains because he was not invited to a Pentagon-sponsored military interfaith prayer service.)
+
“Nazis don’t have a right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”
(Newt Gingrich, a presidential-wanna-be who is also willing to say whatever his constituency wants to hear, regarding the proposed Muslim community center nearby the 9-11 Twin Towers site; no, Newt, the Nazi analogy works only if al-Qaeda was trying to put up a sign of some kind, not Muslims; for everyday Germans to build a memorial to Jewish holocaust victims could potentially be appropriate and healing indeed.)
*****
+
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here…”
(Michael Bloomburg, Mayor of New York City, on the proposal to build the Muslim center and the ensuing outcry that has arisen.)
+
“I prefer blueberry.”
(Senator Carl Levin, good-naturedly responding to a woman who hit him in the face with an apple pie over a disagreement on foreign policy; is this how some think we should now conduct our political disagreements?)
+
“These are very tough times for America with many of our people hurting, there is no doubt about it. But we will dig our way out of it once again, just as we always have – IF people would just stop yelling at each other for 30 minutes.”
(Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion host, at a recent concert.)
*****
So much anger, so much hatred in our public conversation today. Yet still some voices of calm reason striving to be heard. Regardless of our philosophical differences, whose voices should we be listening to these days? The voices of anger, division and self-serving interests? Or the voices of inclusion, good will towards others, and the serving of the pubic interests?
In the election upcoming this fall, perhaps we should have less concerns about what a particular politician says, or claims to think, or his/her governmental / economic philosophies. Perhaps instead we might spend more time thinking about what we believe inside ourselves – about our own character and beliefs, about fairness towards all, about listening and speaking respectfully to our differences. Negative speech inevitably leads to negative outcomes. In the difficult times in which we now live, we need to speak and act towards positive outcomes, appealing not to the worst in us, but to the best in us. Positively.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
On Un-Hallowed Ground
Recently, housing and zoning officials in New York City approved a request by some local U.S. citizens to renovate and convert a former Burlington Coat Factory building into an Islamic Community Center. The purpose of this Center, as stated by the reportedly respected and middle-of-the-road Muslim cleric leading this effort, is to promote inter-faith dialog and sharing in the promotion of peace among all faiths. The Center, which will not be a mosque but will contain a Muslim prayer room, will be located two blocks from the destroyed Twin Tower site where 3000 people were killed on 9-11-2001. Both New York City Mayor Michael Bloomburg and President Barack Obama have both endorsed this project as the right thing to do and the right statement to make about America.
The negative reactions and noise-making that have ensued were entirely predictable. It appears that because all 19 of the 9-11 terrorists were Muslim, people of the Islamic faith are not entitled to locate places of worship in America. The protestors argue that the Twin Tower location is hallowed ground, intended to honor those killed there. But I hardly think that a Burlington Coat Factory building that has no connection to the events of 9-11 except adjacency qualifies as hallowed ground. And I hardly think that Murfreesboro, Tennessee – which is all up in protesting arms because a group of Muslims who have been quietly living and worshiping there in peace for years and who plan to build a large Islamic Center there – is hallowed land not available to Muslims.
This is not an argument about hallowed ground. This is the venting of people’s continuing anger over the act of 9-11, and their frustration at 9 years thereafter of continuing war, the killing of young American soldiers, and the draining of our economy. The ones who have been killing us are Muslims, which apparently means that all Muslims are bad, which also apparently means that Islam, the religion Muslims follow, must thereby be evil.
There are millions of Muslims living in America. They have been in this country for years, quietly going about their business of living and working, with the same aspirations for themselves and their families as the rest of us. Likely with a family immigrant heritage that came to America for the same reasons of economic opportunity and freedom of expression that brought all of our immigrant ancestors to America. They lived pretty much unnoticed and un-hassled by the rest of us until 9-11. Most were as horrified by the 9-11 actions as non-Muslims were. (“They were just thugs,” a Muslim told me once in Lebanon.) Yet out of our ignorance of their Islamic faith, a number of Americans lumped all Muslims together as equally guilty of the abhorrent sins of the few simply because of their faith.
“The Greatest Generation” took on Hitler’s killing machine and defeated it. German soldiers, and even many SS members, thought of themselves as good practicing Christians, predominately Lutheran. Shall we ascribe the gassing of 6 million Jews and others to an implied racism of Lutheranism? In 1942, we herded American citizens of Japanese ancestry into “relocation camps” and arbitrarily seized their property – an ugly blot on our history – just because the then Japanese government attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Should we ascribe the 9-11 event to a people, and effectively deprive them of their rights of citizenship simply because of their historical lineage? Shall we blame Jesus for all the broken promises made to, and the near annihilation of, Native-Americans, the killing of Mormon founder Joseph Smith by a mob, and the killing of all the people in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh – all acts committed by self-proclaimed “good Christian people”? The net of “guilt by association” is a broad one, quickly ensnaring all kinds of innocent bystanders.
The First Amendment guarantees every citizen the freedom to practice his/her religion of choice without interference. It does not say, “except for -----.” There are no exceptions listed. The only test is citizenship, not the religion one chooses. I have become very tired of self-promoting politicians who yell about honoring and strictly adhering to the Constitution in one breath, and who then selectively pick what parts of the Constitution to observe for which group of people in the circumstances that they think will win votes for themselves. I have become equally very tired of those religious leaders who ask governments to endorse their brand of religion over others, who would deny that same right to others, while never acknowledging that freedom of religion for all is the very thing that guarantees them their own form of worship.
The Qur’an – Islam’s holiest scripture about which we Americans are woefully ignorant – rejects killing, and expressly endorses the teaching of Moses and Jesus, both of whom also reject violence. The Qur’an’s passages do include calls to defend the faith vigorously if attacked, reflecting Islam’s earliest struggles against persecution and the threat of annihilation, just as Christianity suffered in its beginnings. It is often these passages that terrorists point to in recruiting sycophants to do their killing work – kill the infidels who are attacking Islam and its Muslim adherents. As Ron Paul solely but correctly pointed out in his 2008 presidential campaign, unfortunately for us U.S. history over the last 60 years has given the Muslim world plenty of reasons to feel persecuted and under attack from us.
Islam has not declared war on America. Islam did not kill those 3000 people in the Twin Towers. 19 Muslim terrorists chose to do that with justification, but did so out of a perverted distortion of their faith. A distortion arising from their own selfish motivations, angers, and sense of persecution – frustrations they felt in their minds of their lack of ability to enjoy and fulfill their own life. They were as antithetical to Islam as all faiths have had to endure those who rationalize their acts in betrayal of their faith. Just as distorted as the man who chose to kill an abortion doctor because the killer claimed “to believe in the sanctity of life.” Our unwarranted attacks and discriminations against Muslims in this country reflect our own fears, not their threats. Each time we do so, we affirm the very mantra that Osama bin-Laden proclaims against us – that American are out to destroy Islam. These kinds of words and actions we take do not extinguish bin-Laden’s fire; instead, we just inflame and justify his fire.
That Center in lower Manhattan needs to be built precisely because we need to renounce by our actions the message of hate, and to expose the lies from those who are traitors of their faith. To show the strength and best face of America, not our worst. And then we all need to return to, and remind ourselves of, the real Truths of our own faiths.
The negative reactions and noise-making that have ensued were entirely predictable. It appears that because all 19 of the 9-11 terrorists were Muslim, people of the Islamic faith are not entitled to locate places of worship in America. The protestors argue that the Twin Tower location is hallowed ground, intended to honor those killed there. But I hardly think that a Burlington Coat Factory building that has no connection to the events of 9-11 except adjacency qualifies as hallowed ground. And I hardly think that Murfreesboro, Tennessee – which is all up in protesting arms because a group of Muslims who have been quietly living and worshiping there in peace for years and who plan to build a large Islamic Center there – is hallowed land not available to Muslims.
This is not an argument about hallowed ground. This is the venting of people’s continuing anger over the act of 9-11, and their frustration at 9 years thereafter of continuing war, the killing of young American soldiers, and the draining of our economy. The ones who have been killing us are Muslims, which apparently means that all Muslims are bad, which also apparently means that Islam, the religion Muslims follow, must thereby be evil.
There are millions of Muslims living in America. They have been in this country for years, quietly going about their business of living and working, with the same aspirations for themselves and their families as the rest of us. Likely with a family immigrant heritage that came to America for the same reasons of economic opportunity and freedom of expression that brought all of our immigrant ancestors to America. They lived pretty much unnoticed and un-hassled by the rest of us until 9-11. Most were as horrified by the 9-11 actions as non-Muslims were. (“They were just thugs,” a Muslim told me once in Lebanon.) Yet out of our ignorance of their Islamic faith, a number of Americans lumped all Muslims together as equally guilty of the abhorrent sins of the few simply because of their faith.
“The Greatest Generation” took on Hitler’s killing machine and defeated it. German soldiers, and even many SS members, thought of themselves as good practicing Christians, predominately Lutheran. Shall we ascribe the gassing of 6 million Jews and others to an implied racism of Lutheranism? In 1942, we herded American citizens of Japanese ancestry into “relocation camps” and arbitrarily seized their property – an ugly blot on our history – just because the then Japanese government attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Should we ascribe the 9-11 event to a people, and effectively deprive them of their rights of citizenship simply because of their historical lineage? Shall we blame Jesus for all the broken promises made to, and the near annihilation of, Native-Americans, the killing of Mormon founder Joseph Smith by a mob, and the killing of all the people in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh – all acts committed by self-proclaimed “good Christian people”? The net of “guilt by association” is a broad one, quickly ensnaring all kinds of innocent bystanders.
The First Amendment guarantees every citizen the freedom to practice his/her religion of choice without interference. It does not say, “except for -----.” There are no exceptions listed. The only test is citizenship, not the religion one chooses. I have become very tired of self-promoting politicians who yell about honoring and strictly adhering to the Constitution in one breath, and who then selectively pick what parts of the Constitution to observe for which group of people in the circumstances that they think will win votes for themselves. I have become equally very tired of those religious leaders who ask governments to endorse their brand of religion over others, who would deny that same right to others, while never acknowledging that freedom of religion for all is the very thing that guarantees them their own form of worship.
The Qur’an – Islam’s holiest scripture about which we Americans are woefully ignorant – rejects killing, and expressly endorses the teaching of Moses and Jesus, both of whom also reject violence. The Qur’an’s passages do include calls to defend the faith vigorously if attacked, reflecting Islam’s earliest struggles against persecution and the threat of annihilation, just as Christianity suffered in its beginnings. It is often these passages that terrorists point to in recruiting sycophants to do their killing work – kill the infidels who are attacking Islam and its Muslim adherents. As Ron Paul solely but correctly pointed out in his 2008 presidential campaign, unfortunately for us U.S. history over the last 60 years has given the Muslim world plenty of reasons to feel persecuted and under attack from us.
Islam has not declared war on America. Islam did not kill those 3000 people in the Twin Towers. 19 Muslim terrorists chose to do that with justification, but did so out of a perverted distortion of their faith. A distortion arising from their own selfish motivations, angers, and sense of persecution – frustrations they felt in their minds of their lack of ability to enjoy and fulfill their own life. They were as antithetical to Islam as all faiths have had to endure those who rationalize their acts in betrayal of their faith. Just as distorted as the man who chose to kill an abortion doctor because the killer claimed “to believe in the sanctity of life.” Our unwarranted attacks and discriminations against Muslims in this country reflect our own fears, not their threats. Each time we do so, we affirm the very mantra that Osama bin-Laden proclaims against us – that American are out to destroy Islam. These kinds of words and actions we take do not extinguish bin-Laden’s fire; instead, we just inflame and justify his fire.
That Center in lower Manhattan needs to be built precisely because we need to renounce by our actions the message of hate, and to expose the lies from those who are traitors of their faith. To show the strength and best face of America, not our worst. And then we all need to return to, and remind ourselves of, the real Truths of our own faiths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)