In 1776, Thomas Paine began his series of pamphlets entitled, The American Crisis with the famous words, "These are the times that try men's souls." If Paine were alive today he would express the same sentiment regarding the current American crises. We have big problems yet we can't come together enough to solve even the simple ones. We've faced tremendous challenges throughout or history, but right now whether we're talking about routine matters such as raising the debt ceiling or vexing, intractable problems such as our dismal employment situation, all struggles have been exacerbated because, among other things, Republicans have decided to cut off the country's nose to spite the president's face.
Conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers are cheering on GOP lawmakers who seek first and foremost to obstruct President Obama at every turn. If their opposition happens to mesh with a principled stand, so much the better, but in the absence of a good reason or anything resembling integrity, they'll oppose the president anyway. Of course if al-Qaeda had hatched such a plan to paralyze our national government, rendering us incapable of dealing with our pressing issues, these very same right-wingers would become hysterical and pour into the streets in a blind rage with three or four guns apiece in tow. Sadly, Republican lawmakers have been ideologically hijacked by the fringe elements of their party and, consequently, while our nation is foundering, these legislators who are well paid to be part of the solution, have become a conspicuous part of the problem.
The employment situation is still a nightmare. As I said in a previous post, we need to add at least 125,000 jobs per month just to essentially maintain the status quo. Thus, from June 1, 2000-June 30, 2011 (133 months) we needed to add over 16.6 million jobs, but we actually lost 868,000 jobs over that period, leaving us 17.5 million jobs in the hole. I don't blame President Obama for the job losses that have occurred since he took office 30 months ago any more than I would blame a pitcher for his dreadful 1-7 win loss record if four of the eight guys playing behind him have been bribed by gamblers to purposely lose ballgames. The Republican Party has made dimming President Obama's reelection prospects a top priority, and in their eyes, deliberately prolonging the agony of the American people is nothing more than acceptable collateral damage.
I know that people are upset. I understand that the Tea Party faithful could (and did) weather economic hard times with a president they kind of liked and economic good times with a president they didn't like, but hard times with a black Democratic president named Barack Obama was more than they could endure and they were sucked into a vortex of paranoia and unbridled hatred. What I don't understand is why so many people of comparatively modest means insist on throwing themselves on live grenades just so the very rich won't have to be bothered by those distracting explosion sounds.
Republicans have at every opportunity replaced the term "wealthiest Americans" with the term "job creators" and made these people sacred cows we disturb at our peril. However, our wars and other endeavors must be paid for by someone, so every dollar those at the top don't contribute must come from those below them on the economic ladder. More importantly, the notion that increasing taxes on those with the highest incomes will cost us jobs is questionable at best. In 1993 Republicans thundered the same warning as Bill Clinton raised taxes on top earners. However, what followed was the greatest expansion of jobs in our country's history. Right after that boom, George W. Bush lowered taxes on the economic elite, unleashing the worst prolonged period of job losses since the Great Depression. This would suggest two lessons about the claim that we need to cut taxes on the very rich or we'll lose jobs: First, ignoring this and doing the polar opposite can yield the best results we've ever seen and, secondly, following this advice can unleash a gut-wrenching catastrophe for all but the extremely wealthy.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Everything I Do Is Because of You
Father's Day 2011 is coming to an end in a matter of minutes as I start this, but I wanted to put a couple thoughts into a brief post, even if I don't get it in by midnight, Central Time.
Earlier today, Rory McIlroy, a 22 year-old golfing phenom from Northern Ireland made history by winning the U.S. Open in record-breaking fashion and Gerry McIlroy, Rory's father, was there to hug his son after the final hole was completed. Rory wished Gerry a happy Father's Day and went on to express his gratitude for the sacrifices that both his parents made for him, but I want to discuss such sacrifices a little further.
Rory McIlroy is without question an enormously gifted golfer. He has the skill of Tiger Woods and the likable personality of Phil Mickelson. If anyone on earth has a brighter future in the game than he does, I'm not aware of him or her. However, with or without his colossal talent, I wonder if he could have come so far so fast without such giving and selfless parents. Although that question can't be answered with any certainty, I would tend to doubt it. Gerry McIlroy worked three jobs, often working 100 hours a week to help Rory realize his dreams, and Rosie McIlroy, Rory's mother also worked extremely hard. While Rory's prowess on the golf course is quite extraordinary, the story of parents giving all that they have to give for the sake of their children is far more common, although such unselfishness is just as awe inspiring if we stop to think about it.
In reflecting upon how such giving fathers affect our lives, there's a song I can't seem to get out of my head. Gary Burr wrote and Conway Twitty recorded a song that seems right on point. It's called "That's My Job." The song tells the story of a son asking for help and comfort from his father in times of need, and the father replying, "That's my job; that's what I do. Everything I do is because of you." The father in the story is expressing what many of us have seen in our own lives, that parents will provide for their children first and worry about themselves second, if at all. There is, however, much more to the song, and the real poetic beauty of it is yet to come. By the final verse, the son has grown to become a professional songwriter, and he wonders how he can possibly write a fitting tribute to his father who has just passed away. The answer he comes up with is, "That's my job; that's what I do. Everything I do is because of you." The very same words, everything I do is because of you, express both the unwavering selflessness of parents and the enormous debt that children owe their parents for their ultimate success.
I feel extremely fortunate and humbled that I had parents every bit as dedicated as those mentioned above. They have both been gone for more than 10 years, my father for more than 15 years, but they will stay with me in many ways forever. Happy Father's Day to any fathers who may read this. In all likelihood, you too are giving the next generation more than they can possibly repay, but that's your job; that's what you do.
Earlier today, Rory McIlroy, a 22 year-old golfing phenom from Northern Ireland made history by winning the U.S. Open in record-breaking fashion and Gerry McIlroy, Rory's father, was there to hug his son after the final hole was completed. Rory wished Gerry a happy Father's Day and went on to express his gratitude for the sacrifices that both his parents made for him, but I want to discuss such sacrifices a little further.
Rory McIlroy is without question an enormously gifted golfer. He has the skill of Tiger Woods and the likable personality of Phil Mickelson. If anyone on earth has a brighter future in the game than he does, I'm not aware of him or her. However, with or without his colossal talent, I wonder if he could have come so far so fast without such giving and selfless parents. Although that question can't be answered with any certainty, I would tend to doubt it. Gerry McIlroy worked three jobs, often working 100 hours a week to help Rory realize his dreams, and Rosie McIlroy, Rory's mother also worked extremely hard. While Rory's prowess on the golf course is quite extraordinary, the story of parents giving all that they have to give for the sake of their children is far more common, although such unselfishness is just as awe inspiring if we stop to think about it.
In reflecting upon how such giving fathers affect our lives, there's a song I can't seem to get out of my head. Gary Burr wrote and Conway Twitty recorded a song that seems right on point. It's called "That's My Job." The song tells the story of a son asking for help and comfort from his father in times of need, and the father replying, "That's my job; that's what I do. Everything I do is because of you." The father in the story is expressing what many of us have seen in our own lives, that parents will provide for their children first and worry about themselves second, if at all. There is, however, much more to the song, and the real poetic beauty of it is yet to come. By the final verse, the son has grown to become a professional songwriter, and he wonders how he can possibly write a fitting tribute to his father who has just passed away. The answer he comes up with is, "That's my job; that's what I do. Everything I do is because of you." The very same words, everything I do is because of you, express both the unwavering selflessness of parents and the enormous debt that children owe their parents for their ultimate success.
I feel extremely fortunate and humbled that I had parents every bit as dedicated as those mentioned above. They have both been gone for more than 10 years, my father for more than 15 years, but they will stay with me in many ways forever. Happy Father's Day to any fathers who may read this. In all likelihood, you too are giving the next generation more than they can possibly repay, but that's your job; that's what you do.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Respect Are-County Speak English
Like many of my blog entries, this one was inspired by something on my friend Joe's Facebook page. He posted a picture of a sign that reads, "Respect Are-Country Speak English." It's hard not to smile at the magnificent irony of essentially shouting, "Get outta here if yous can't talk good English." This particular image aside, I want to discuss the staunch English-only and anti-immigration crowds.
I don't really care about the sign in question. Many people pronounce "are" and "our" the same way, and even those who know how to properly use the correct word will occasionally type "your" instead of "you're" or "here" rather than "hear." This can and does happen to the best of us. Granted, that kind of careless mistake is less likely when making a protest sign, but I'll give this person the benefit of the doubt that the error is the equivalent of a typo and it doesn't necessarily impugn his or her intellect or education. Of course, I can't begin to explain the hyphen, but let's be generous here too. I'm not interested in the sign itself, but I want to discuss the sentiment it represents.
For a few reasons, I'm bothered by those who throw a fit when Spanish is spoken in this country. The arrogance of expecting the world to speak our language while not bothering to learn anyone else's is bad enough, but wearing one's ignorance as a badge of honor by somehow taking pride in the inability to speak more than one language is worse. It's like bragging, "Hey, look at me! I'm too stupid to do long division but Daddy left me enough money that I could hire people to do my math."
Even though I'm not fluent in any foreign language, I've had little trouble when traveling abroad, and I'm grateful for the consideration I've received when I'm a guest in another country. As an American, I've also benefited mightily from how low the bar has been set. Any effort to speak the native language is seen as an extraordinary gesture on my part and tends to be met with tremendous goodwill. I was talking to an Interpol officer in a Lyon Metro station and he said my French was very good even though it clearly wasn't. He wasn't being sarcastic; he was being kind and encouraging me. We should extend the same courtesy.
I understand and agree that those who want to live here permanently should learn English, but let's not be so disingenuous as to paint this debate in terms of tough love designed to help Spanish speakers assimilate. This issue is being driven by those who would pound the table and bellow, "This is my house and you'll live by my rules!" No one is being required to learn Spanish; the only issue before us is whether or not we accept the fact that millions of hard working Americans do speak that language. Considering that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory where Spanish is the native language and that it's no accident or coincidence that many of our western states have Spanish names, it seems unreasonable to bear such hostility to that language being used alongside English.
The burning desire for English-only laws and so forth stems from the same place as the anti-immigration mindset - the fear that any change will ruin the character of one's beloved homeland. This is not new. The nativist vs. newcomer battle goes back a very long way. Luckily, at every turn this country of immigrants has ultimately stayed true to its character, and we've been enriched by each successive wave of newcomers. We would not have achieved our national greatness had we listened to the small-minded to whom change is terrifying, particularly when it involves people they perceive as different from themselves.
Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, I demand to see every right-wing blowhard's earliest report card. My guess is that at least 75% of them failed Sharing in kindergarten.
I don't really care about the sign in question. Many people pronounce "are" and "our" the same way, and even those who know how to properly use the correct word will occasionally type "your" instead of "you're" or "here" rather than "hear." This can and does happen to the best of us. Granted, that kind of careless mistake is less likely when making a protest sign, but I'll give this person the benefit of the doubt that the error is the equivalent of a typo and it doesn't necessarily impugn his or her intellect or education. Of course, I can't begin to explain the hyphen, but let's be generous here too. I'm not interested in the sign itself, but I want to discuss the sentiment it represents.
For a few reasons, I'm bothered by those who throw a fit when Spanish is spoken in this country. The arrogance of expecting the world to speak our language while not bothering to learn anyone else's is bad enough, but wearing one's ignorance as a badge of honor by somehow taking pride in the inability to speak more than one language is worse. It's like bragging, "Hey, look at me! I'm too stupid to do long division but Daddy left me enough money that I could hire people to do my math."
Even though I'm not fluent in any foreign language, I've had little trouble when traveling abroad, and I'm grateful for the consideration I've received when I'm a guest in another country. As an American, I've also benefited mightily from how low the bar has been set. Any effort to speak the native language is seen as an extraordinary gesture on my part and tends to be met with tremendous goodwill. I was talking to an Interpol officer in a Lyon Metro station and he said my French was very good even though it clearly wasn't. He wasn't being sarcastic; he was being kind and encouraging me. We should extend the same courtesy.
I understand and agree that those who want to live here permanently should learn English, but let's not be so disingenuous as to paint this debate in terms of tough love designed to help Spanish speakers assimilate. This issue is being driven by those who would pound the table and bellow, "This is my house and you'll live by my rules!" No one is being required to learn Spanish; the only issue before us is whether or not we accept the fact that millions of hard working Americans do speak that language. Considering that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory where Spanish is the native language and that it's no accident or coincidence that many of our western states have Spanish names, it seems unreasonable to bear such hostility to that language being used alongside English.
The burning desire for English-only laws and so forth stems from the same place as the anti-immigration mindset - the fear that any change will ruin the character of one's beloved homeland. This is not new. The nativist vs. newcomer battle goes back a very long way. Luckily, at every turn this country of immigrants has ultimately stayed true to its character, and we've been enriched by each successive wave of newcomers. We would not have achieved our national greatness had we listened to the small-minded to whom change is terrifying, particularly when it involves people they perceive as different from themselves.
Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, I demand to see every right-wing blowhard's earliest report card. My guess is that at least 75% of them failed Sharing in kindergarten.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Long Road Back
The April jobs report came out today and again the news was good. The economy gained 244,000 jobs last month, with the private sector gaining 268,000 jobs and the public sector shedding 24,000. This has been the trend for some time now, with private sector job growth outpacing the overall jobs number because the public sector is shrinking. Although the March and April numbers are still preliminary, we've added 768,000 jobs in the first four months of 2011 and, leaving off January, we've gained 700,000 jobs in the last three months.
Although the unemployment rate rose to 9.0% from last month's rate of 8.8%, this is less important than job growth for reasons that I won't get into here since this is already going to be wonkish enough as it is. I will say, however, that the makeup of the unemployed has shifted, with far more people unemployed for less than five weeks and far fewer unemployed for more that twenty-seven weeks. This too is welcome news.
If the good news is that we're on the road to recovery, the bad news is that it's an extremely long road. Primarily because our population grows, we need to add more jobs to the workforce just to maintain the status quo. Specifically, we need to add at least 125,000 new jobs every month or 1.5 million every year, and that's a conservative estimate. Many economists use 150,000 a month or 1.8 million new jobs a year and, frankly, this higher number is historically sound. In the 1960s when the population was smaller, we added over 17 million jobs, and in the decades of the '70s, 80s and '90s we added over 18 million jobs in each. Over the forty years from 1960 through 1999, we added an average of about 160,000 jobs a month. Nevertheless, I'll use the 125,000 number. Now, let's look at the facts and do the math.
In the Great Recession we lost millions of jobs, but the periods before it and after it were also marked by anemic job growth, and we mustn't forget the 1.5 million jobs we need to add annually just to keep up. In the last 11 years, from May 2000 through April 2011, we should have added 16.5 million jobs, but over that period we actually lost 632,000 jobs, leaving us with a shortfall of more than 17.1 million jobs that we need to make up, over and above the 1.5 million per year we need to add going forward if we want to get back to where we were 11 years ago when Clinton was president.
If we add 225,000 jobs every month, that would mean 2.7 million a year. The only president to exceed that over his entire presidency was Bill Clinton, although, believe it or not, Jimmy Carter was closest with a rate of over 2.6 million for his whole presidency. I know Sean Hannity likes to say that we lost 10 million jobs under Carter, but once again he's wrong and we gained over 10 million jobs under Carter. LBJ also added well over 2 million jobs a year and Ronald Reagan, although falling short of 2 million a year for his entire tenure, did manage to do so for one of his two terms.
In any event, even if we can add jobs at a rate of 2.7 million a year over a sustained period of time, when you consider that 1.5 million of that is just to tread water, it won't be until September 2025 that we can get back to where things were in May 2000. That's a 25+ year long national nightmare. We need to focus on job creation or we'll condemn an entire generation of Americans to the eroded peace of mind that attends our woeful employment picture. I'm begging everyone to keep their eyes on the ball and ignore those who would use wedge issues to divide us and render us unable to solve our real problems.
Although the unemployment rate rose to 9.0% from last month's rate of 8.8%, this is less important than job growth for reasons that I won't get into here since this is already going to be wonkish enough as it is. I will say, however, that the makeup of the unemployed has shifted, with far more people unemployed for less than five weeks and far fewer unemployed for more that twenty-seven weeks. This too is welcome news.
If the good news is that we're on the road to recovery, the bad news is that it's an extremely long road. Primarily because our population grows, we need to add more jobs to the workforce just to maintain the status quo. Specifically, we need to add at least 125,000 new jobs every month or 1.5 million every year, and that's a conservative estimate. Many economists use 150,000 a month or 1.8 million new jobs a year and, frankly, this higher number is historically sound. In the 1960s when the population was smaller, we added over 17 million jobs, and in the decades of the '70s, 80s and '90s we added over 18 million jobs in each. Over the forty years from 1960 through 1999, we added an average of about 160,000 jobs a month. Nevertheless, I'll use the 125,000 number. Now, let's look at the facts and do the math.
In the Great Recession we lost millions of jobs, but the periods before it and after it were also marked by anemic job growth, and we mustn't forget the 1.5 million jobs we need to add annually just to keep up. In the last 11 years, from May 2000 through April 2011, we should have added 16.5 million jobs, but over that period we actually lost 632,000 jobs, leaving us with a shortfall of more than 17.1 million jobs that we need to make up, over and above the 1.5 million per year we need to add going forward if we want to get back to where we were 11 years ago when Clinton was president.
If we add 225,000 jobs every month, that would mean 2.7 million a year. The only president to exceed that over his entire presidency was Bill Clinton, although, believe it or not, Jimmy Carter was closest with a rate of over 2.6 million for his whole presidency. I know Sean Hannity likes to say that we lost 10 million jobs under Carter, but once again he's wrong and we gained over 10 million jobs under Carter. LBJ also added well over 2 million jobs a year and Ronald Reagan, although falling short of 2 million a year for his entire tenure, did manage to do so for one of his two terms.
In any event, even if we can add jobs at a rate of 2.7 million a year over a sustained period of time, when you consider that 1.5 million of that is just to tread water, it won't be until September 2025 that we can get back to where things were in May 2000. That's a 25+ year long national nightmare. We need to focus on job creation or we'll condemn an entire generation of Americans to the eroded peace of mind that attends our woeful employment picture. I'm begging everyone to keep their eyes on the ball and ignore those who would use wedge issues to divide us and render us unable to solve our real problems.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Birther Don't You Come Around Here Anymore
Yesterday President Obama released his long form birth certificate, which was at the center of the so-called "birther" controversy. While in theory this should have put the entire disgraceful matter to rest, we quickly learned that we couldn't simply move on and try to regain our national dignity. As soon as the document they clamored for was released, rather than apologizing for perpetrating a fraud on the American public, these same people resorted to everything from saying it was a fake to calling for President Obama's college transcripts.
With regard to the latter, Donald Trump claims to have heard that Barack Obama was a "terrible student" who somehow mysteriously got into Columbia and Harvard. Of course this is unsourced and is either based on hearsay of indeterminate reliability, or it's simply a bald-faced lie contrived in Trump's own mind. When assessing how seriously to take this accusation, we need to consider two things. First, since nothing Trump said about the birth certificate, what his investigators were finding, the birth announcement, and so forth had any truth to it whatsoever, we need to evaluate anything he says with the harsh scrutiny that we reserve exclusively for those who have lied to us. Secondly, the one thing we do know about Barack Obama's academic record is that he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the law review. This would suggest that President Obama was a superb student, not a terrible one.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, I'll even entertain the possibility that Donald Trump isn't lying, and that in his youth Barack Obama wasn't the academic star that he later indisputably became. To a reasonable American, the arc of this story would actually flatter Mr. Obama. He took a weakness of his youth, and worked at it until he was not only no longer weak, but he had excelled to the point that he was among the very best in the nation. We don't condemn that; we celebrate it. However, this is still grist for Mr. Trump's deplorable mill.
What Trump is saying loud and clear to his receptive audience is that this _______ (you know the word) only got where he got in life by being unqualified but stealing what rightly belonged to a deserving white person. Not only do Trump's supporters instantly decode his message, but it's sweet music to their ears. Their wretched and tortured souls can only find peace if President Obama's achievements can be attributed to usurpation and not legitimacy. A shark needs to swim, a racehorse needs to run and a bigot needs to hate. I'm not judging these people on anything superficial, but on the content of their character, which happens to be an unholy mess.
If the ugly dark cloud of this story has a silver lining it's that, while we still have a long we to go, we've also come a long way. Fifty years ago a black man making a serious run for president would more likely find himself in a round noose than an oval office. Today a man born of a black father and a white mother is the duly elected President of the United States. Yes, it's terrible that millions of Americans refuse to accept that basic truth and they'll do everything in their power to wish it away with shameful attempts to attack his legitimacy, but it seems that our 21st Century vile racists are less dangerous than their 20th Century counterparts. At this point, I'll take any victory, however small.
With regard to the latter, Donald Trump claims to have heard that Barack Obama was a "terrible student" who somehow mysteriously got into Columbia and Harvard. Of course this is unsourced and is either based on hearsay of indeterminate reliability, or it's simply a bald-faced lie contrived in Trump's own mind. When assessing how seriously to take this accusation, we need to consider two things. First, since nothing Trump said about the birth certificate, what his investigators were finding, the birth announcement, and so forth had any truth to it whatsoever, we need to evaluate anything he says with the harsh scrutiny that we reserve exclusively for those who have lied to us. Secondly, the one thing we do know about Barack Obama's academic record is that he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the law review. This would suggest that President Obama was a superb student, not a terrible one.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, I'll even entertain the possibility that Donald Trump isn't lying, and that in his youth Barack Obama wasn't the academic star that he later indisputably became. To a reasonable American, the arc of this story would actually flatter Mr. Obama. He took a weakness of his youth, and worked at it until he was not only no longer weak, but he had excelled to the point that he was among the very best in the nation. We don't condemn that; we celebrate it. However, this is still grist for Mr. Trump's deplorable mill.
What Trump is saying loud and clear to his receptive audience is that this _______ (you know the word) only got where he got in life by being unqualified but stealing what rightly belonged to a deserving white person. Not only do Trump's supporters instantly decode his message, but it's sweet music to their ears. Their wretched and tortured souls can only find peace if President Obama's achievements can be attributed to usurpation and not legitimacy. A shark needs to swim, a racehorse needs to run and a bigot needs to hate. I'm not judging these people on anything superficial, but on the content of their character, which happens to be an unholy mess.
If the ugly dark cloud of this story has a silver lining it's that, while we still have a long we to go, we've also come a long way. Fifty years ago a black man making a serious run for president would more likely find himself in a round noose than an oval office. Today a man born of a black father and a white mother is the duly elected President of the United States. Yes, it's terrible that millions of Americans refuse to accept that basic truth and they'll do everything in their power to wish it away with shameful attempts to attack his legitimacy, but it seems that our 21st Century vile racists are less dangerous than their 20th Century counterparts. At this point, I'll take any victory, however small.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)