Heartless Toward the Heartland

The body count from the tornado that devastated Joplin, Missouri Sunday is still rising, but that certainly doesn't mean that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor would miss a single beat before seizing yet another opportunity to hold a gun to the head of the American people to further his own agenda. Cantor announced Monday that Congress would not approve any emergency spending to help these people unless that money is first offset by spending reductions elsewhere.

This would be understandable if Cantor were simply a hidebound deficit hawk whose main priority was doing everything in his power to reduce our debt, but that's just not the case. In the last several months alone, he and fellow Republicans fought hammer and tong to preserve budget busting tax cuts for the richest Americans and billions of dollars in corporate welfare for the largest oil corporations, even though these companies are the most profitable in the history of the world. Cantor's actions have little to do with responsible leadership on deficit reduction and a great deal to do with his allegiance to the richest and most powerful people in the country, at the expense of average Americans whom he and other conservatives fraudulently claim to care about and represent.

If there's one fixed star in the modern Republican constellation, it's the mandate to fight for the greedy over the needy at every turn and at any cost. They're far more concerned with doing everything they can to increase the dominance of the economic elite over everyone else than they are with doing anything to help the overwhelming majority of Americans in any way shape or form. Their claims of being concerned about fiscal discipline ring laughably hollow because they exercise their righteous indignation so selectively and improperly. You can't be taken seriously as a fiscal watchdog if you don't object to someone blowing a gargantuan hole in the budget with the purchase of a new limousine, but you sound a deafening alarm if his chauffeur spends $20 on a new seat cover.

In the end, no thanks to Rep. Cantor, our country did what it always does, and the people of Joplin will get the aid they so desperately need. Nevertheless, as a proud Missourian by choice though by birth, I'm offended, and I see no reason to let Mr. Cantor off the hook even a little bit. When these poor people were down, Cantor couldn't resist the opportunity to swoop in and kick them as they lay prostrate and defenseless, just because he could exploit the suffering of these middle class Americans for his own purposes.

The most shameful and odious of Congressman Cantor's actions came after the aid money was approved. He actually had the nerve to tweet, "Our hearts are w/ victims of #Joplin tragedy. House #GOP ready to help & has found offsets for emergency $$$." I say to Eric Cantor let's get something straight right now. This solution wasn't found because of your efforts as the victims' friend; it was found despite your efforts as their enemy. You used human misery as a pawn in your game and now you want to bask in the glory of what some decent and compassionate legislators did for these people. Don't you dare tell me that your heart goes out to the victims. In this context, I see no evidence that you even have a heart.

Race to the Bottom

Let the pandering begin! The race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has certainly begun, and a number of potential candidates are already in full campaign mode, playing to likely Iowa caucus goers and anyone else from the far right. Unfortunately, this race to the bottom requires the contenders to outdo one another in an effort to sink to a new low. This forces some candidates to give up either their presidential aspiration or their honor.

Take the example of Donald Trump. He's toying with the idea of a 2012 presidential run so he's trying to gin up support among Republicans. To that end he has now become a "birther," which is to say someone who at least purports to question whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I say purports to question because even Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe Trump is sincere about this, which buttresses my point. Trump isn't that stupid, ignorant or blinded by hatred, but he knows that people who are now make up a sufficiently large percentage of the Republican base that he has to pander to them. His attempts at playing this ridiculous game have been embarrassing and his claims can be reduced to ashes with the greatest of ease, but that doesn't matter because his target audience is impervious to facts or reason. To make matters worse, Trump is also playing to these people by spewing anti-Islamic bigotry.

Speaking of anti-Islamic bigotry, Donald Trump has his work cut out for him if he wants to catch Herman Cain. Mr. Cain, who's one of only three Republicans to have formed an exploratory committee (there are no formally declared candidates yet), has publicly proclaimed that as president he would appoint no Muslims to his cabinet nor to the federal bench. His rationale for this discrimination is his fear that they will impose Sharia law on this country. Perversely, he justifies his position of treating one religion differently from others with the First Amendment, because it prevents favoring one religion over another. He also states that Muslims should act like Christians and not try to impose their religious values on others, even though his core supporters want us to impose their version of Christian values on this country. Most importantly, this fear of Sharia law is a bogeyman constructed exclusively by bigots for bigots. Proposed laws to bar Sharia are unconstitutional, unnecessary and embarrassing, but defending them will get you a standing ovation at a Tea Party gathering where Herman Cain won the presidential straw poll.

Yes, I'm saying that far too many conservative Republicans have a fear of Islam that extends well beyond legitimate concern regarding terrorism and into the lunatic fringe. Newt Gingrich was counting on that when he warned an audience that we could become a "secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists." That's right; he tried to doubly terrify the stupid by simultaneously advancing the mutually exclusive specters of atheism and religious extremism. Newt's spokesman tried to rescue him by saying that he meant either atheist or radical Islamist, not both. That would make Gingrich's remark slightly less moronic but still utterly worthless since he can't decide which of two polar opposite directions the trend line is moving.

Finally, Mike Huckabee's entry into the race to the bottom makes me the saddest, because I honestly thought he was better than that. Yes, Newt Gingrich made headlines last year by suggesting that President Obama is incomprehensible to us unless we understand the mindset of a Kenyan anti-colonialist, but such words from Gingrich are predictable. Governor Huckabee, on the other hand, was a big disappointment when he essentially took a page from Gingrich's book and tried to paint President Obama as an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-colonialist who grew up in Kenya, sympathetic to the Mau Mau revolution and hostile to the British. Mike Huckabee may not know a Mau Mau from a muumuu, but like the others, he knows how to fertilize the field where fear and hatred grow, a particularly apt metaphor considering what they're spreading. Republicans who now seek the presidency apparently subscribe to the belief that, "The only thing we have to exploit is fear itself." If they insist upon playing to the dregs of their party, they should expect the scorn and contempt of decent people.

War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength

The title of this post is taken from George Orwell's novel, 1984. Specifically, these were the slogans that were displayed on the Ministry of Truth building. I'm not suggesting that Orwell was prescient or that our society resembles the dystopian nightmare laid out in that book, but I can't resist commenting on how these words are important to the book 1984, the year 1984 is so important to conservative Republicans, and how these words from the book express the right wing philosophy.

The movement conservatives who currently dominate Republican politics look upon the "Reagan Revolution" with unparalleled reverence. 1984 is perhaps the most celebrated year in terms of Reagan's presidency. In that year he was reelected President with a 49 state landslide. Although purely coincidental, it's still amusing that these slogans from the book 1984 would capture the essence of political thought for right wing Republicans who cherish Reagan and 1984.

War is peace is the most obvious. At one time, conservative Republicans were opposed to foreign entanglements and simply wanted to be left alone to make money, but now Neo-conservatives love war, despise diplomacy, and can scarcely fathom the concept of peace without a body count. Whether it's war abroad or more guns at home, actual or threatened bloodshed is their only path to tranquility.

Ignorance is strength has also become a doctrine for the far right. They routinely spurn science, nuanced thought, and anything that challenges their preferred orthodoxy, in favor of a mindless adherence to a party line teeming with misinformation, unchallenged erroneous assumptions, and wishful thinking. This willful ignorance is the reason such a disturbing number of Republicans believe that President Obama is a Muslim or was born overseas or that Glenn Beck is worth listening to as he weaves his tapestry of nutty conspiracy theories. The right has built a great deal of its strength because the ignorant masses in their ranks mindlessly repeat what they hear rather than doing 45 seconds of research, and I'm not even counting the religious right.

The third contradiction, freedom is slavery is perhaps the most troubling. The right wing's confusion between freedom and slavery is central to their agenda, and it will harm society for generations if we don't push back now. When the almighty overlords completely subjugate the masses, most people would call this slavery. The political right calls it their freedom agenda. Whenever there's a conflict between powerful forces and average citizens, the answer for conservatives is to strip whatever power the little guy has in order to make an already uphill fight unwinnable. If a battalion of machine gunners fought some poor schmuck armed with a rock, conservatives would correct this imbalance by taking away the guy's rock.

If workers have some leverage against powerful corporations or governments, eliminate their bargaining power, as they're trying to do in Wisconsin. If we pass laws that protect consumers against abusive and corrupt practices in the financial world, gut the enforcement mechanism, as they're now trying to do in Congress. For years, the only suggestion Republicans made to combat skyrocketing health care costs was to limit an injured person's right to seek redress through the courts. A little guy going up against a giant hospital corporation and an insurance company wasn't unfair enough for them; they had to give the mighty an artificial advantage to supplement the natural dominance they already had. After all, a court case involves lawyers against lawyers and an impartial judge and jury. Such a fair system is intolerable because justice is anathema to the right.

By freedom, conservatives mean the freedom of the few to enslave the many, and we need to stop them. Being rich and powerful has always had its advantages and we don't need to sweeten the deal for those at the top. Moreover, most Republicans will be hurt by their own agenda. Yes, A few will score big and be thankful that we discarded our former national greatness in order to further tip the scales in their favor, but most conservatives are, metaphorically speaking, Titanic passengers who have been too blinded by greed and ignorance to see their self-destructive stupidity in supporting the iceberg. The rest of us mustn't be so foolish.

One Nation Under...Well, a Lot of Things

When December 7th rolls around each year we're reminded of the attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred on this date 69 years ago.  That event brought us into World War II with a vengeance and provided the opening sentence for a magnificent chapter in not only U.S. history but world history as well.  The United States pulled together, sacrificed across the board and did more than anyone thought possible.  Let me illustrate the power of our resolve.  In the second half of 1940, gearing up for possible entry into WWII, we produced about 3,600 airplanes.  By 1944 we were producing nearly 100,000 planes a year.  The unified strength of the USA was a force that simply couldn't be matched if we were determined to master a challenge.  In 70 years we've had a meteoric rise, but we're headed for a crash landing unless we change course.

We can't afford to sit on our laurels and assume that we'll always be on top because God likes us best.  We earned our number one status with sacrifice and dedication not supernatural puppeteering, and we can and will fall hard from that lofty perch if we think that we don't still need to do what's hard.  Unless you're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice that will accompany the hard choices facing us, don't bother puffing up your chest and preaching to me about the greatness of our "one nation under God", because right now we're also one nation undereducated, underemployed and underwater on our mortgages. Our peace of mind is under siege, anyone different from us is under suspicion and too many of us are under the delusion that the American way of doing anything is by definition better than what's being done elsewhere. This has fostered the erroneous and destructive belief that we can't learn a thing from others around the world; they should learn from us.  Like so many heroes of the Greek tragedies, our fatal flaw could be hubris.

We're increasingly perceived around the world as incapable of solving our problems. We used to be so adept at doing whatever it took to build a strong and prosperous society that the world could only watch in awe as the 20th Century became the American Century. At the moment, we're less like that impressive force on the global stage and more like a lumbering, bumbling oaf who can lift a ton but can't spell it. We need to take a brutally honest inventory of our shortcomings and somehow find the discipline to right the ship even though it will involve some pain and, dare I say, cooperation.  Otherwise, the United States is doomed to become an effete has-been like a character from Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" who lives in the past, basking in the memory of bygone greatness.

We used to rank #1 in college graduation rates; we now rank 12th, and we rank 20th in high school graduation. If we combine that with the fact that we've outsourced so many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, the picture becomes even more disturbing. If we're not educating our workforce as well as the rest of the industrial or post-industrial nations and we've taken the suitable jobs for the less educated and moved them overseas, I'm not sure how we wake from our current economic nightmare. It certainly seems that right now we're eating our seed corn.  The problem of today's overconsumption imperiling our future became disturbingly clear as we watched the wrangling over tax cuts and spending even in the face of ballooning debt.  Right now we completely lack the will to be responsible grownups who make the hard choices and sacrifice the way people did 70 years ago when we were en route to unparalleled greatness.  I'll explore taxes, spending, politicians and the electorate in another post.  For now I'll simply say that like the craven attack on Pearl Harbor 69 years ago today, our greedy, selfish and childish refusal to act in good faith and make sacrifices should also live in infamy.

Greed Over People

If you had any doubt that the Republican Party favored the rich and powerful over everyone else, such doubt can now be safely abandoned.  The GOP, which apparently stands for Greed Over People, continues to hold a gun to the head of the American people, playing their role as extortionist for the very rich to perfection.  Their plan is to hamper and obstruct any effort to do the people's business unless and until their ransom is paid and the wealthy are given everything on their wish list.  At that point, the rest of us can begin negotiating against ourselves regarding tough choices and shared sacrifice as long as the most privileged are insulated from the pain.

Nothing brings this into sharper focus than Republicans' refusal to extend desperately needed unemployment benefits or anything else until we cut taxes for the richest sliver of 1%.  This became an inarguable fact after the Democrats already started negotiating against themselves and agreed to lower taxes on everyone whose taxable income fell below $1,000,000 a year and Republicans rejected this as an insufficient sop to the fantastically rich for whom they pimp.

Considering the ability of Republican lawmakers to inflict devastating harm on average Americans, coupled with the heightened airport security of late, perhaps al-Qaeda should funnel its resources into the GOP coffers rather than spending money on suicide vests.  Maybe if they did so and it came to light we'd realize what's happening.  Unfortunately, since the Senate Minority Leader isn't named Osama bin McConnell most Americans are blind to the fact that we're being kneecapped by these thugs.  Indeed, keenly aware of our widespread oblivion, Mitch McConnell was even brazen enough to say, "We need to show the American people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interests' legislative Christmas-list."  While I abhor both the complete lack of integrity and the cruel indifference to the suffering of his constituents, it's hard not to marvel at the ability to summon the colossal audacity it takes to make such a statement, which is opposed to the truth by a full 180 degrees.

Republicans are taking the unprecedented step of shutting off needed unemployment benefits at a time of such high unemployment.  The average check is less than $300 a week and the entire expense would add much less to the deficit that then unfunded tax cuts for the richest Americans.  Nevertheless, Republicans are wiling, perhaps even eager, to to strip away the only safety net that lies between millions of Americans and Dickensian horror.  On the other hand, the far more expensive, far less economically valuable tax cuts for the wealthy not only don't have to be paid for, but Republicans have vowed to rain down a firestorm of obstructionism and pain if anyone dares to oppose this most sacred of budget busters.  In other words, if the modern American equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge has his after tax income reduced from 700 times that of Bob Cratchit down to 675 times, Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure that some American homes face the heartbreaking prospect of "an empty chair and a tiny crutch without an owner."

I want to emphasize how much more valuable these unemployment checks are to our economy than the proposed tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder.  All of the money from the unemployment benefits gets put back into the economy. People using these checks to keep the wolf from the door aren't stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.  The same cannot be said for those making $1,000,000 a year.  The Republicans' own hue and cry over the failure of the stimulus proves this very point.  We tried to pump money into the economy through a program of tax cuts and spending, but the rich and powerful scooped it up and they're now hoarding unprecedented amounts of cash.  Any economist would readily affirm that we'd get a greater return on the jobless benefits than on the top bracket tax cuts, but Republicans will continue to carry water for the rich, everyone else be damned.

765 Reasons to Be Proud

Last night former eBay CEO Meg Whitman received several million votes in her failed bid (no pun intended) for the California governorship and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina received millions of votes in an unsuccessful run for the Senate. A close friend of mine is also a chief executive of sorts, albeit of a much smaller company, and he entered politics this year as well, running for a district-wide state office. While a shift of 100,000 votes would look like a meaningless rounding error in the above races for Governor or Senator, for my friend Bill an additional 7,000 votes would have given him a victory in his first political campaign.

Unlike campaigns that threw a fortune into attack ads and mud at their opponents, Bill's campaign directed all of its resources into putting his ideas forward and letting them rise or fall on their merits. Truth be told, we were disappointed but not surprised by his loss at the polls. Everyone loves a good David vs. Goliath story with a triumphant underdog, but in reality we tend to see why the smart money bets on Goliath. Bill isn't an Elk, a Lion or a Mason. He isn't on the school board, zoning board or planning board. He's not a union member, he belongs to no church and he has only lived in his district for 12 years, which makes him a newcomer by local standards. In short, at the beginning of the election cycle he was a cipher to most voters and he was up against a popular multi-term Republican incumbent in a very Republican district. That's not an uphill battle; that's an uphill four minute mile in street shoes.

Things have gotten ugly in this country. Our political discourse at the moment is only slightly more civilized than a cockfight, and political leaders have been regarded with contempt. Republicans, who had a huge night last night, have an approval rating that would generally spell disaster, and on the other side of the aisle, Harry Reid only survived because he was perceived as a Democratic frying pan to Sharron Angle's Grand Old Fire. Many voters are selecting whomever they despise less.

That said, spending election night in my friend's living room reminded me what's great about our political process and let me forget the cynicism and anger for a while. I sat there with a man who sought nothing more than a chance to make his contribution to our self-governing society. He wasn't seeking money, power, a pension or anything else, nor was he trying to advance any agenda other than doing whatever he can to improve the lives and fortunes of those in his district. This was a case of civic minded public service in its purest and noblest form. He and I have some major differences in political philosophy, yet he welcomed my input as well as that of anyone else who was willing to talk to him. He wanted to hear from everyone both despite and because of political differences. That's how a representative of the people should be!

When all the returns were in, Bill received 765 votes or 6% of those cast. That's actually an impressive tally for a little known third party candidate in that race. He should be proud of every vote because he earned each one of them with his ideas not his party affiliation. He ran a selfless and honorable race and his message resonated with a significant number of people. I wish that everyone would see up close what it's really like to run for office. Those who put themselves out there deserve our respect, and around Election Day, those who dared to step into the ring have earned the right to stand a little taller, win or lose. I'm thankful that I had a ringside seat.

Fighting the Wrong "Elites"

The American political landscape is littered with examples of one group pitted against another. One such divide is what some on the right call the "culture war." As they frame it, this is a battle between salt of the earth "real" Americans who believe in traditional values, and their opponents, referred to as "liberal elites," whose views are more progressive, and who tend to live on either coast, especially in large metropolitan areas. For about the last forty-five years, the rivalry between these two factions has had very important electoral implications, raising the significance of this debate beyond just competing schools of thought in the marketplace of ideas.

Without rehashing the entire history that got us here, Nixon's southern strategy, the Reagan coalition and so forth, suffice it to say that millions of Americans felt the country had changed too much too fast and Republicans masterfully capitalized on the disquiet that swept through the South and other rural areas, changing the political map ever since. The defection of these traditional "values voters" to the Republican party has sparked debate over whether or not they're well served by that move. Some believe these people have been hoodwinked by clever political operatives who convince them they'll benefit by backing candidates who stand on their side on wedge issues such as abortion and gay rights.

That's precisely what historian and author Thomas Frank argues in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? His central thesis is that these people were snookered by a classic bait and switch. Lure the voters by firing them up over some hot button social issues and have them vote you into office. Once elected, do nothing about these issues. Instead, use your position to greatly enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, often to the detriment of those you suckered into voting for you against their own interest. In other words, market yourself as the party of Hallelujah, though you're actually the party of Halliburton. Dr. Frank's book is controversial, and there has been some rebuttal, but I'm not interested in whether or not his analysis is perfect; I'm interested in examining the consequences and wisdom of the choices we make. I'm second to none in my desire to see small town America take on the "elites", but the battle should be against the right elite.

The real elite are the select few at the very top of the economic ladder who have done exceedingly well in the last 30 years while the rest of the country has not. The richest 1% of the population holds as much wealth as the bottom 95% combined, and in this country money in many ways equals power. I would love to see the middle class fight to prevent its further erosion rather than siding with the very rich and abetting their efforts to control an even bigger share of the pie. Instead, too many people continue to harm themselves and others by injudiciously backing people who don't care about them.

Nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody wants the road paved. We all want to give the least and get the most, but what separates the privileged few from everyone else is that they have the power to make their wishes reality unless people stand up to them. Right now our economy is being held hostage. We're supposedly doomed unless we placate the richest Americans because decision makers are hamstrung, not knowing if the top tax rate will return to where it was during the Clinton years. Really? Well, if you lack the business acumen to handle uncertainty in this uncertain world, your $24 million pay is overinflated by at least $23.95 million and your shareholders would like it back please.

Before making its own mistakes, the labor movement taught us that if we stand together we can create a society of broadly shared prosperity that became the envy of the world. History has also taught us that polarization of wealth is a recipe for disaster. It will be a glorious day when "real" Americans take on the real "elites."

The Obtuse Angle

To paraphrase something I read before George W. Bush's reelection, Harry Reid is toast but for a toaster. The Senate Majority Leader faces a litany of problems that should render him almost unelectable. He has low approval and high disapproval ratings with a large percentage of strong disapproval. If we also consider the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the nation, Nevada's economic woes and buyer's remorse over electing President Obama (he won the state with 55% of the vote but his current approval rating in Nevada is lower than the national average), and the fact that among Nevada's likely voters, self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by a margin of nearly two to one, Senator Reid is in serious trouble.

Republicans were given a wide margin of error in their effort to flip this important seat. Any credible candidate would automatically become a prohibitive favorite to win simply by virtue of Reid's challenges. I'm pretty sure Nevada Republicans could have successfully run Wayne Newton. However, to a rousing chorus of "Danke Schoen" from Democrats everywhere, they chose one of the few Nevadans who could actually lose to Senator Reid. To use a baseball analogy, Republicans only had to hold onto their 10 run lead in the bottom of the 9th inning. Then they went to the bullpen for the righty, Sharron Angle.

If Reid manages to hold his seat, Republicans will learn a painful lesson about overindulging the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party, or as I call this subgroup, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. I suppose at some point we'll get used to Sharron Angle, but for the moment her antics are still jaw-dropping. Indeed, part of me suspects that after the election we'll see a movie in the vein of Borat, at which point we'll learn that she was only toying with us. While this is unlikely, it still seems more plausible than a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate who is this bad.

I remember a sitcom episode in the 70's, in which a Ted Baxter style character (possibly Ted Baxter) was running for office and his handlers, whenever told that the candidate would be asked questions, responded with stammering trepidation, "H...hard questions?" We all laughed, but that fictional character is essentially the real Sharron Angle. I'm not exaggerating when I say that she holds "press conferences" and runs for daylight before anyone can ask a single question.

There is good reason for Sharron Angle to evade the press. Her strategy is clear: She will only speak directly to the far right and count on everyone else to vote against Harry Reid while knowing nothing about her. That would explain why she threatened to sue Senator Reid for publishing what she trumpeted on her own website as the reason to vote for her in the primary. Of course as soon as she won the primary, she wanted to erase all evidence of her positions in an effort to mislead either primary voters or general election voters by trying to sell different views to each electorate.

Among the jaw-dropping antics referred to above, she went on Fox News, an outlet very sympathetic to a right-wing candidate, but still shocked the host by proclaiming that the media should only ask the questions she wants to answer. As the stunned broadcaster sat there asking himself if she could really be that naive, she smirked and took the opportunity to twice squeeze in free plugs for her website and beg for $25 donations. This reminded me of people who would call into serious radio and television shows just so they could blurt out, "Howard Stern" and hang up. Like these puerile Stern fans, Sharron Angle is an intellectual toddler who is no more qualified to serve in the Senate than she is to play nose tackle for the Redskins.

Her outrageous positions, for instance, women are wrong to work instead of staying home to raise children, gay adoption should be illegal, teen rape victims should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancies to term, Democrats are idolaters who literally worship government as their god, etc. make good headlines but would make abysmal law. Not only does she have no new ideas, she doesn't have any that weren't already frayed around the edges 40 years ago. She brings absolutely nothing of value to the table and we can't afford to waste a Senate seat on her.

Is the Tea Cup Half Full of Half Empty?

As a political junkie, I've watched various trends and movements come and go, but I find the Tea Party oddly fascinating because, like so many other observers, I still don't quite know what to make of them. They have certainly generated more buzz than their size would seem to warrant. It's entertaining to watch commentators and journalists spending inordinate amounts of time discussing this group, if only to tell us that journalists and commentators are spending inordinate amounts of time discussing this group. The Tea Party movement seems to be something of a political Rorschach test that different people look at and see very different things.

The Tea Party was essentially formed from various factions of the political right although there are exceptions. The most obvious constituency are those who think that the government has grossly overstepped its mandate, and the processes through which it has illegitimately seized power and insinuated itself increasingly into our lives must be reversed. They believe in a very strict and narrow interpretation of the Constitution and they wear three-cornered hats to celebrating the patriots of the late 18th Century, the era in which both the original Boston Tea Party took place and the Constitution was framed. If this were the movement's only core group then they would be garden variety small government conservatives. However, there are other elements that make this movement different.

If those wearing the felt three-corner hats represent one core Tea Party group, then another part of the its base should be wearing hats of any shape as long as they're made of tin foil. This is the crazy conspiracy theory lunatic fringe. The final group I want to discuss should be wearing hats made of any material as long as they're tall, pointy and fashioned to be worn over a hood. These groups are undeniably a part of the movement, but the bone of contention between supporters and detractors concerns their relative size. Advocates say that you will find kooks and bigots in any group and this one is no exception. They should be no more stained by these elements than the local Elks Club, union hall or bowling league. Opponents argue that while any large organization will have some bad apples, the share of teabaggers driven by hatred is so disproportionately high that without these people the movement would be dramatically reduced. This is the crux of the disagreement. Those who see the unsavory characters as a fringe to be found in any group praise the movement, and those who see them as one of the main pillars of the Tea Party condemn the movement. As is often the case, the truth may lie in the middle.

At its best, the Tea Party can be to politics what Paddy Chayefsky's 1976 satirical masterpiece, Network was to TV. They both essentially implore the masses to run to their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!" With 30 years of reckless deficit spending putting our future in hock, someone needs to sound a clarion call. At its worst, the Tea Party summons humanity's baser side, promoting the fear and hatred that will shame us once we return to our senses. Yes, if the policies of this administration were being advanced by a president who was a blue-eyed Mayflower descendant named James Wellington, there would still be strong and vocal opposition, but we wouldn't see the level of insanity we're seeing now. Too many people who were already uneasy about having insufficient control over their lives see the election of this president as their "Leave it to Beaver" world being preempted by "Soul Train" and they've gone stark raving mad.

The claims that President Obama is essentially the living embodiment of Leon Trotsky, or that he's a Kenyan born Muslim, or other nonsense coming from teabaggers destroy the Tea Party's credibility and that's a shame because someone does need to speak up about the troubling gap between the government's spending and its revenue. Speaking of which, they also lose credibility when they claim their rage comes from big government spending piling on debt, but they applaud George W. Bush's presidency. Likewise, they can't be taken seriously when they roundly support Medicare (a system where the government seizes your money through taxation to fund a single-payer health care system) while simultaneously saying that a mandate to carry health insurance is a cataclysmic socialist nightmare that reminds them of Hitler. If they stuck to a legitimate argument against big government, they could potentially have an important voice.

Carpenters Wanted: Jackasses Need Not Apply

I have to admit I'm confused. It seems that people constantly complain about elected officials being no good because they don't really care about the people they serve; they only care about keeping their jobs. This widespread criticism suggests that politicians are bad because they choose to do the popular thing in order to get reelected instead of doing the responsible thing, which is their duty. Now people are enraged because legislators worked tirelessly to pass health care reform even though opinion polls showed considerable opposition. I don't understand how politicians can be condemned with equal ferocity for following the polls and for not following the polls.

For a long time, we've known that we have serious problems in our health care system, and for a long time we've tried in vain to institute comprehensive solutions. All such efforts failed precisely because these are thorny issues and in the absence of heroic visionaries, those who had the power to fix our system inevitably took the coward's way out and did nothing even if they knew something needed to be done. It takes extraordinary courage to soldier on and keep working towards an important goal knowing you will suffer an endless barrage of slings and arrows from those who don't have what it takes to do what needs to be done. Political hacks and cowards do only what's easy without regard to what's important; real leaders do what's important without regard to what's easy. As Sam Rayburn said, "Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build it." We need carpenters and I'm immensely grateful that we have some. One good carpenter is infinitely more valuable to our society than the combined total of everyone attending the world's largest tea party for jackasses.

In addition to leadership on substantive issues, we need statesmanship to elevate the tone of the discourse. Even those who should be responsible voices of reason are acting disgracefully. I cringe when I see Sarah Palin get thunderous applause for knocking the "lame stream media" in an artless, ham-fisted play on the term mainstream media, which is itself a term the political far right uses with scorn because to them only that which is extremely slanted their way can be considered not slanted. Such is the world in which these people spend 168 hours a week. Listening to President Obama then to someone like Sarah Palin is like watching a Lincoln-Douglas debate then turning around to watch one five year old call another five year old a doody head. America needs better leaders than the Sarah Palins of the world if it aspires to be something other than a second rate laughingstock.

Grumpy Old Pouters

A wise man once said, "You can't kill your parents then ask for sympathy because you're an orphan." G.O.P. lawmakers, as in Grumpy Old Pouters are now acting like petulant children because the bi-partisanship that they painstakingly murdered is now dead. They gambled on a strategy of trying to bring down a President rather than being responsible grownups and doing what we pay them to do, and they crapped out. In keeping with their inclination to take defeat in the manner of a spoiled brat, Senator John McCain has proclaimed that Republicans will not cooperate for the rest of the year. We know that Senator McCain can't possibly hold his breath that long, but it's not clear whether or not he actually stuck out his tongue or stamped his feet as his announced his intention not to play nicely with the other boys and girls.

With that, the cat is officially out of the cellophane bag. The wide eyed idealists who believed that Republicans in the Senate had at least a scintilla of good faith and were not solely concerned with obstructing those who sought to solve our problems, must now abandon the last shred of hope that such integrity existed. This is not to say that Republican lawmakers are inherently worse than Democrats, or that Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing if the roles were reversed; we have no way of knowing. However, in this case, it happens to be the Republicans and they deserve to be called out.

Unfortunately, this debacle persists as Republicans pursue some Machiavellian gains by using parliamentary gambits designed to both drag this out and to politically embarrass Democrats. Republican senators are working feverishly to find some excuse to change the bill's text so that it would have to go back to the House for yet another vote. The most regrettable aspect of the whole sordid affair is the transparent demagoguery and sleaze. Republicans are proposing poison pill amendments designed to both alter the bill and provide fodder for deliberately dishonorable and false advertising. For instance, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), introduced an amendment to bar coverage for erectile dysfunction medication for convicted sex offenders. Republicans intend use votes against this thinly veiled charade in ads specifically designed to deceive voters by mischaracterizing the votes as a desire on the part of Democratic lawmakers to use taxpayer money to give Viagra to monsters who rape children. Such deliberately misleading advertising for a product would cause significant FTC fines.

I want to make it clear that this only happens to be Republicans in this case. The sleazy demagoguery and win at any cost gutter politics cut across all party lines and political ideologies. That said, people need to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. I'm bothered because these are our leaders and we should to be able see them as something other than contemptible. Politicians acting without a sense of honor or decency corrode our democracy and further harm the already maligned though noble calling of public service. I know politics can be a bare knuckle street fight that sometimes gets pretty ugly, but we need to recognize what's beyond the pale and when to say stop it! You're disgracing your office and your country.

The Unsinkable Scott Brown

If the political pundits are correct that purple is the new black, then Massachusetts is becoming tres chic. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, in political speak, blue states are reliably Democratic, red states are reliably Republican, and purple is, of course, what you get when you have a mix of red and blue. Massachusetts was just about the bluest state in the union, but last night, Scott Brown, a comparatively unknown Republican state senator defeated well known Democratic Attorney General, Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. This latest "Massachusetts Miracle" will doubtlessly be discussed by political junkies and social scientists for years to come, and it may take quite some time to sort out its meaning and implications.

According to some polls, Ms. Coakley had a 31% lead two months ago. Not since the 1978 Red Sox has anyone in Massachusetts blown a lead so big so close to the finish line, and this time no one can curse Bucky F--king Dent. Mr. Brown ran an excellent campaign and Ms. Coakley did not, but that doesn't seem enough to fully explain last night's result. Was it perceived arrogance on the part of Coakley, Obama, or the Washington Democrats? Was it the unpopular health care bill working through Congress, the Tea Party, anti-incumbent fever (Coakley wasn't an incumbent but the seat was controlled by her party), or was Brown just that attractive a candidate? All of the above and likely every combination thereof will be claimed by someone as the right answer, but we'll never really know for sure. Among other things, voters can't always pinpoint exactly what makes them pick A over B. All we can say for sure is that Massachusetts, which seemed destined to send its first woman to the Senate, will instead be sending a Republican to the Senate for the first time since the Nixon landslide of '72.

The bigger question is what does it all mean? If the reason is the health care bill, does it mean reform is dead for now or does it mean that we'll pass different reform? If it's anti-incumbency, are Republican incumbents as vulnerable as Democratic incumbents in November? What if people just prefer Scott Brown? Also, what are the broader implications of now having 41 senators in the Republican caucus? Yes, Obama is losing popularity, but he remains popular in Massachusetts. Yes, the Tea Party fought for Brown and he won a seat held by Democrats for a long time, but in November in the New York 23rd, the Tea Party backed a conservative and they lost a long held Republican seat to a Democrat. I don't know; maybe moderates are sick of both sides trying to pull them to the respective lunatic fringes.

If there's anything I feel safe in saying it's that our recent political history can teach us something. Shortly after the Republican Revolution of 1994, people wrote the epitaph for the Democratic Party as a national force. A few years later, the same was said of the Republicans, asserting that they now represented only the Deep South and Mountain West. After seeing this go back and forth with the speed of Olympic ping-pong, even Americans, notorious for having a short historical memory, will likely hesitate before drawing such sweeping conclusions. Congratulations to Senator Brown and, as one of your constituents, let me thank you in advance for your service to our state and country. May your election usher in a new era of more responsible governing and less of the partisan bickering that has eroded the respect we should have for those who represent us in Congress.

You Say Nazi I Say Not So

Can we please, for the love of God, stop equating the Obama administration with Hitler's reign of terror?! As far as I can tell, the reasoning underlying the linkage between Obama and Hitler is this: Nazis called themselves national socialists and in the minds of some Americans, any increased government presence in something other than national defense makes us a socialist nation and Obama its socialist leader. I can only presume that to them any socialist regime is indistinguishable from any other, so the U.S. under Obama would be the same as Germany under Hitler. I'm not sure where to even begin setting the record straight. The entire exercise is reminiscent of debating the fine points of implausibility regarding Gilligan's Island, but I suppose I have to begin somewhere.

First, I've heard voices from the far right asserting that more government involvement in health care would make us the same as Hitler's Germany. Barney Frank famously heard the same thing at a town hall meeting. I have to ask, is that really the lesson you took away from history? Hitler wanted to offer health care to all citizens, Jew and gentile alike? Really?! For one thing, Germany had universal health care going back to Bismarck, before Hitler was even born (in Austria), so I'm having difficulty understanding how it's peculiar to Hitler and Obama. Also, Israel has universal health care. Are you prepared to tell Israelis who still bear the tattoos of Nazi atrocities that their country is identical to the one they fled for their lives after seeing their family members slaughtered? I know of no 20th Century historian whose mind turns immediately to health insurance when reflecting upon Nazi Germany. By the way, Singapore, a purer example of market capitalism than the U.S. also has universal health care.

Now let's compare the feared Nazism of the Obama administration with the halcyon days of Ward and June Cleaver and the Eisenhower presidency. The top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower never dipped below 91%. Also, when we think about domestic policy initiatives in those eight years, we likely think of the interstate highway system, which was inspired by the advantages that the autobahn system gave the Nazis. During the Eisenhower years we had legally enforced segregation, and blacks, who were not part of our country's master race, would be thrown in jail if they tried to escape the ghetto of their second-class citizenship by using a public toilet or occupying a seat on the bus. Now let's be clear, Eisenhower's presidency bears no resemblance to Nazi rule, but that's equally true of Obama's. When the private sector failed and we were facing a collapse that most people can't even imagine, Obama, like Bush before him, stepped into the breach to rescue the country from catastrophe. His decision not to fiddle while Rome, Georgia burned should not be confused with a plan to enslave all Americans under his megalomaniacal whip.

This is not new; the same charges of socialism, destroying America and so forth were leveled against FDR. Notwithstanding the Chicken Little ranting, the sky was not falling. We ultimately thrived as never before and our dime now bears FDR's image. I will concede that on the continuum between pure capitalism and pure socialism, greater government involvement moves us along that line away from pure capitalism, but we need to retain a sense of proportion. The government stepping in to shore up a failed private institution rather than allowing another devastating blow to an already battered economy does not equal or even foreshadow a complete disappearance of private property and freedom. We'll always have a mix of public and private in this country, and that's a good thing. Complete government control of our lives would be an Orwellian nightmare, but a society without any safety net whatsoever would be a Dickensian nightmare. I don't want to live under totalitarian oppression any more that you want to live in a country where people who can't afford medical care are left to die in the streets. There's plenty of room for disagreement on the proper role of government, but let's keep our heads, tone down the rhetoric and work together to solve our common problems.

Lead, Follow or Get out of the Way

The post's title is probably my favorite Thomas Paine quote. It enjoyed new life and widely came into the public consciousness as a commercial tagline when Lee Iacocca was running Chrysler. It's certainly much more elegant than its modern counterpart, which because of its crudeness I won't repeat here, but suffice it to say that it rhymes with "knit or get off the cot." Paine's words should be a bare minimum standard for any elected official, and failure to adhere to them should automatically disqualify him or her for re-election. If this standard were applied, the sad and shameful truth is that a lot of familiar faces on Capitol Hill would disappear.

Let's get a couple of things straight. First, simply obstructing the problem solving efforts of others while offering little or nothing in the way of your own solutions is not to be celebrated as dissent or the sort of checks and balances the Constitution envisioned. The Monty Python crew understood this when they pointed out the following distinction, "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." If you're only capable of offering the equivalent of contradiction and not a compelling argument, then we neither need nor want your input and we'll let those with something of value to add carry the day. Far too many in both chambers of Congress, especially the Senate, are failing to do the job for which they're accepting a paycheck. In many cases, if they practiced law the way they practice lawmaking they would be disbarred.

Secondly, the world is an imperfect place and, thus, simply finding fault with someone else's plan means nothing. With respect to health care reform, for instance, every proposal has its own set of problems and doing nothing at all would eventually be catastrophic. You add absolutely nothing to the dialogue if you only point out costs or other shortcomings without demonstrating that your idea, loss for loss, is better overall.

Finally, this should apply not only to lawmakers but also to the general marketplace of ideas. My patience with those who offer nothing but negativity has been exhausted. I could eventually bankrupt someone who took the following bet, turn on Rush Limbaugh at a random point during his show. If he's saying anything positive about right wing politics or anything else, I owe you $20; if he's simply spewing venom, you owe me $1. I recently posted a piece about our demons and better angels. Rush's world is composed almost exclusively of demons. He is to anger and hatred what Richard Simmons is to exercise for the corpulent elderly - no one works harder to promote it. I'm also out of patience with Obama haters. Predictably, the people beaming with schadenfreude when Obama failed to secure the Olympics for Chicago claimed last week that he didn't have the international star power people thought he had. Today those same people are fuming that he was awarded the Nobel peace prize solely because he has international star power! They don't care that they're vulnerable to the form shattering question, were you lying then or are you lying now? All that matters is that they get to hate, mock and scorn.

Will the Real John McCain Please Step Up

After the tragic loss of Ted Kennedy, we are in dire need of a statesman to step up and help shape the country's future. No one seems eager to fill this vacuum of real leadership in Congress, but I can envision the possibility of John McCain donning the Lion's mantle. Those who know me may be surprised that I would identify him as a candidate but hear me out. Let's look at some of the reasons why this makes sense and some obstacles that could prevent it. We need someone who, regardless of personal ideology, can work with people across the political spectrum to get things done. We need someone with the steely courage to stand up for what's right even in the face of savage attacks, and we need an honest broker who can not only speak truth to power, but also speak truth to ignorance, which can actually be harder than confronting power.

Apart from these general characteristics of a statesman, there are other factors that pertain to our current circumstances that could make McCain the right choice. For one thing, the Democrats are very well represented at the moment and perhaps a Republican who is willing to work across the aisle despite personally being fairly conservative could help end the opposition for opposition's sake that has created the public's nearly universal contempt for Congress. Even more importantly, only a strong and at least fairly conservative Republican can wrest control of that party from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk who currently hold sway. May God have mercy on us all if those vipers continue to wield such power.

McCain's credentials for heroism in service of his country are bulletproof. I can't fathom the courage it took to remain in North Vietnamese captivity rather that accepting early release under circumstances he believed to be inappropriate. Likewise, he has a history of working on a bi-partisan basis to pass important legislation, and his national reputation was built in large measure by "straight talk" or speaking the truth regardless of possible political fallout. Also, many believe that Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to becoming one of the country's greatest senators only after his bid to become president was unsuccessful. This parallel may also be cause for optimism. Finally, McCain has publicly condemned "agents of intolerance" from the religious right, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have shown very public disdain for him because his brand of conservatism is not that of the vicious, fire-breathing hate merchant.

While all of this is encouraging, there are some serious problems that must be corrected before his ascent is possible. The John McCain of late is not the man celebrated above. I fully understand the reality of national politics, but to be the one who can contribute so much to a country crying out for courageous leadership, Senator McCain must repudiate some of the things he has recently embraced. Anyone who is to be taken seriously as a straight talker on controversial public issues must issue nothing less than an unequivocal, full-throated denunciation of his former running mate's reckless idiocy on health care, just as he did with Congressman Wilson's outburst. Unfortunately, Senator McCain has not only failed to distance himself from former Governor Palin's nonsense, he has thrown his integrity under the "Straight Talk Express" by basically defending it. Unless and until he is willing to go back to condemning agents of intolerance and other offensive elements of his party's base and give the American people a welcome dose of candor, he will simply be one voice from the minority party rather than the man who can take his place in history among our greatest senators. Will the real John McCain please stand up and allow the possibility that the great statesman we so desperately need can step up.

Calling All Angels

This post is named after a Jane Siberry song that was used in the movie Pay it Forward to provide foreground music for the film's powerful ending scene. However, I'm really using the word angels to refer to our "better angels" as Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, about five weeks before Fort Sumter was fired upon. These were the closing words of that speech, "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory...will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

The battle between our demons and our better angels is one that is constantly being waged within each of us on a personal level, and by our society on a broader level. Over the long haul our better angels tend to prevail, at least on a societal level, but how much misery we inflict upon ourselves and one another in the interim depends on how much we indulge our demons. I'm saddened by the way we have given in to our worst selves lately. There was a lesson in The Karate Kid that, while given in reference to martial arts, can just as easily be applied to politics or how we shape our society. Mr. Miyagi's said, "Karate here" (pointing to his head); "karate here" (pointing to his heart); "karate never here" (pointing to the pit of his stomach). Sadly, we are going in the opposite direction with intellectual rigor, compassion and empathy too often being unseated by anger and bile as the locus of our public discourse.

What ever happened to the benefit of the doubt? Right now, if a statement can be taken two ways, one of them benign and one not, we not only assume the worst, but we take it and run with it, attaching a series of things that will follow as a logical consequence, then scream at the top of our lungs, we're all doomed, doomed I say, doomed!! Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are literally making their living at the moment by swearing that an Obama administration means nothing less than literally the complete and utter annihilation of everything America has ever been. While most of us, even thoughtful conservatives who disagree with the president, can laugh off the absurd hyperbole, the number of people who have come unglued by the endless ranting of doomsayers is probably in the millions. Fox News Channel should change its motto from "Fair and Balanced" to "Keeping Angry White People Angry Since 1996." Of course, Fox News has branched out and they now keep angry white people angry and scared.

I'll leave you with an illustration of my point. We grew up venerating Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Now imagine Obama saying the same thing. Talk radio hosts and listeners would be in a blind rage, and in some cases literally crying, over this indisputable proof that Obama's true agenda is to dismantle the America our forefathers fought and died for. Here's one possible example of the blathering, "See, this is what I've been warning you about ladies and gentleman! This radical communist is showing his true colors. This guy wants to throw out 230 years of the rugged individualism that made this country the greatest the world has ever known. Comrade Obama doesn't want you to keep the fruits of your labor that you so richly deserve from your blood, sweat and tears! He wants you to ask yourselves what you can do to contribute to his statist agenda. I swear to you ladies and gentleman if we don't stand up and stop this radical now, the American dream will be dead and the country we love will no longer exist." Kennedy's words would be the same whether spoken by him in 1961 or by Obama 2009, but the meaning we would give them depends on whether we accept the translation of our demons or our better angels. The choice is ours.

Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Between the big political stories and the eighth anniversary of the barbaric 9/11 attacks, which were nothing less than an assault on civilization itself, this has been quite a week. There's actually a common thread running through all of it if you consider the words, "Yes, we've seen it before but never like this." We had experienced acts of war, terrorist attacks, and even a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center before September 11, 2001, but nothing like what we witnessed on that horrible day. Similarly, the political stories had certain historical parallels, but as a matter of degree, they were unprecedented. People were so profoundly affected by the events of eight years ago that my words can add nothing to the dialogue, but I would like to discuss the other stories.

Presidents often address schoolchildren, and though it's properly seen as an honor and privilege to have the president speak to you, it's frequently accompanied by partisan complaints. When Republican presidents do it Democrats cry political campaigning masquerading as service to our youth, and when Democratic presidents do it Republicans cry foul in the same way. But once again, yes, we've seen it before but not like this. Some people across the country were furious, making wild, often patently false, accusations and some school districts refused to show the address even though the full text of the thoroughly inoffensive speech was given in advance. Some critics were enraged because the department of education prepared a lesson plan at all, and some were apoplectic because an earlier version of that plan included an exercise where students write a letter outlining how they can help the president achieve his education goals.

Not only is that letter writing exercise exactly what George H.W. Bush suggested when he addressed students, but it's a perfectly valid lesson extending exercise that promotes critical thinking and active learning. The lesson plan was prepared by some of the country's top teachers and their big mistake was in not hate-proofing it. This is understandable; Americans are by nature optimistic, but teachers are especially so. They simply don't understand the cesspool of darkness in which the hearts and souls of some of these critics reside. Sadly, they have now learned the hard way and America is a little bit uglier for it. Speaking of which, the other big story was Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) openly shouting "You lie!" at the president from the House floor. We have seen partisan rumbling and undercurrents at similar events but once again, yes, we've seen it before but never like this. Even worse, talk radio was upset that he apologized for what every lawmaker of any stripe would call a breach for which an apology would be required.

It's easy to understand the enemy from without that cravenly attacked us eight years ago, but we desperately need to address the ever increasing corrosion from within. As Walt Kelly said via his Pogo comic strip, "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

The Uncivil War

For those of you who find it odd that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing, here's another linguistic irony: Two of the worst instances of our country being torn apart at the seams are The Civil War of the mid 19th Century and what I call the "The Uncivil War" of the early 21st Century. I've lived through the "War on Poverty", "The War on Drugs", "The War on Terror", and now it appears, "The War on Civility" or The Uncivil War. Throughout our history, we've criticized our leaders and institutions, often harshly, but what we've witnessed recently is beyond the pale. Yes, in protests or while venting in private rants, many of us are guilty of saying some remarkably intemperate things. God knows I'm guilty of more than my share. It is, however, very different to have those who posture as responsible spokespeople acting in such a conspicuously irresponsible manner.

I need to clarify that the loss of civility I'm bemoaning doesn't merely relate to politeness or the tone of political discourse, but rather to substance. We have lost the restraint that marks a civilized society. Our disagreements have become back alley brawls where absolutely nothing is off-limits. We've shamelessly lost our sense of decency. You may recall that the beginning of the end of McCarthyism came when someone finally stood up and openly chastised Senator McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, Sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" We desperately need a similar moment now. We need leaders with the courage and integrity to stand up and say, "Stop it!"

We are poisoning the well of our democracy with dishonest and scurrilous attacks and we need to stop it immediately. A recent poll showed that only 42% of Republicans were satisfied that President Obama was born in the United States. This is not the tin foil hat wearing lunatic fringe; this also includes mainstream Americans who have been so conditioned by a relentless stream of fear, hatred and lies from right wing media and even some prominent Republicans to automatically swallow any negative claim about this president. The latest tempest in the latest teapot is the flap over the president's address to schoolchildren. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party condemned it as socialist indoctrination even though there wasn't a shred of evidence to support his fraudulent claim.

There is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you (for being dishonest); fool me twice, shame on me (for being a chump). Well, shame on both of you, and knock it off. We have serious problems to solve, and we need all hands on deck. We simply can't afford the luxury of indulging reckless fantasies that serve to splinter our society at a time when we desperately need cooperation. We're better than this and we will certainly rise above it one day. The only open question is how much more of this disgrace we'll have to endure before we grow up and say, "Enough!"

Demagogues, Death Panels and Dunces

The now infamous warning that a government health care system would be "downright evil" largely because of its "death panel", was given to us by Sarah Palin, the former Governor and current dear God, would you please just go away already! of Alaska. This should take its rightful place in the Fear-Mongering Hall of Shame beside the image Joe McCarthy holding a piece of paper he claimed to be a list of 205 known communists working in the State Department. Unfortunately, in times such as these, when anxiety is running rampant, ridiculous claims gain traction. Forget the people who are born gullible and will die gullible, when there is widespread insecurity, even more discerning people are susceptible to being terrified of whatever bogeyman du jour is being injected into the conversation. There will always be a lunatic fringe making wild accusations, but in better times, we laugh them off and broadly agree that when we need serious thinkers to weigh in on complicated issues, such people are up way past their bedtime and should be sent upstairs while the grownups figure things out.

There is nothing wrong with honest disagreement, in fact, while discord may feel uncomfortable at times, we are much better off because we have people vehemently pushing conflicting ideas, allowing society to ultimately sort out their respective merits. Demagoguery, however, is another matter altogether. We should give no quarter to people who know the truth but feign ignorance in order to exploit the feeble-minded and people whose ability to think clearly has been hampered by fear. The demagogues have come out in force concerning a provision that allows health insurance to pay for physician counseling regarding end of life decisions. Politicians who look people in the eye and suggest this is designed for the wholesale slaughter of the elderly and sick are stupid if they don't know better, dishonest if they do. So, which is it?

In 2003 the Senate passed legislation that, among other things, provides for paying physicians for counseling with respect to end of life decisions. The bill received 54 votes, 42 of them Republican. Among those voting Yea was Senator Grassley of Iowa, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, who recently made headlines for more or less fueling the public's wholly unfounded fear of a provision that's roughly the same as the one he voted for a few years ago. He's not stupid; he's just counting on you to be stupid.

Now let's look at Sarah Palin's 2008 proclamation of Healthcare Decisions Day, designed to encourage doctors and others to inform people and increase the number of citizens with advance directives regarding end of life decisions. Of course, to be fair, I have read Palin's infamous Facebook rant, and the basis for her accusation may not be the controversial end of life counseling provision. She may very well have just made the whole thing up in her head. She simply declared that the government would refuse to pay for care, and that less productive people would be dragged before the death panel for a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may be unfair to accuse her of deliberately misleading people. She may simply lack the intellect required for meaningful understanding of a complicated issue. There is certainly more than ample evidence that she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on that score.

Game On

There was a West Wing rerun on Bravo this morning that in some ways fits current events. In that episode, entitled "Game On", fictional President Bartlett was preparing for, then participating in, a debate with his Republican challenger. A great deal of time and energy was devoted to picking out the right tie and trying to find 10-word sound bites for complicated issues. The idea was to cultivate broad superficial support and offend as few as possible. Senior staff, however, feared that this "Uncle Fluffy" approach would be a mistake. To his staff's delight, the president went after his opponent hammer and tong, and ultimately showed why he was the better candidate. President Bartlett pointed out that instances of absolute right and absolute wrong are rare and almost always include body counts. There are few un-nuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for 10-word answers. We later learn that polls showed no matter what he did, President Bartlett would be seen as arrogant. With nothing to lose, he was free to be himself without fear or consequence.

That should be a lesson for both President Obama and his opponents. If Republicans choose to favor misinformation and demagoguery over acting in good faith, then the president will have no incentive to participate in the charade that the other side of the aisle, as a whole, is interested in serving the interest of the American people on this issue, as they will have chosen instead to deliberately mislead and frighten an already unsettled populace for their own Machiavellian gain. Those who tacitly endorse the lies in the hope of reaping some benefit are every bit as guilty as those who spread them. Still, the most important word above is "if". Unless the president can be certain that all hope of reasonable cooperation is lost, something as big as health care reform shouldn't be done on a purely partisan basis.

For what it's worth, I still can't believe what I'm seeing. I feel as though I'm watching the chess club kid with the taped up glasses and the pocket protector adorning his 30 inch chest somehow managing to bully the biggest guy on the football team. Democrats hold the White House and significant margins in both the House and Senate, yet, perhaps out of force of habit, they are cowering in the corner begging not to be stuffed in a locker. However, should they elect to fight back and fight to win, they can make the Republicans painfully regret the day they thought the "death panel" gambit was a good idea. It entails some risk, but again, not if there is nothing to lose.